From: "Yeshiva University Israel Alumni"
To: "Yeshiva University Israel Alumni"
Subject: A Message From Rabbi Goldwicht
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:44:46 +0200
March 19, 2006
19 Adar 5766
To the Yeshiva University Israel Community,
I want to express my sincerest apologies for any negative messages conveyed in my remarks last night at seudah shlisheet. I am honored to be part of Yeshiva University and to have participated in this extraordinary Shabbat experience. Our alumni in Israel represent the highest of ideals of our people. Unfortunately the words from my mouth did not reflect the thoughts in my heart.
B'yididut,
Rav Meir Goldwicht
Posts
23 comments:
I don't even know what to say. The whole incident is just bizarre. And while someone big enough to admit mistakes and apologize always gains my admiration, I'm not sure how R' Goldvicht said what he said and (especially) to whom he said it in the first place.
Not sure? Well, to be a bit lyrical, we were akin to the Bnei Yisrael at Sinai. Then there were 650,000 and yesterday at the Renaissance Hotel, we were 650. You can ask Ruby Davidman and a host of others who were there.
And you have his apology.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying I'm not sure that he said what he said. I'm saying I'm not sure how he said what he said. It just seems like such a misstep, and unexpected from such a smart and learned man.
That's what happens when you mix your smartness and knowledge with your ideology. One is objective; the other subjective. It's best that the two go together.
Apparently one of the dangers of living in Eretz Yisrael R' Goldwicht forgot to mention was the lack of k'vod haTorah. At least that's the impression I'm getting from this website. Your arrogance is truly striking: "That's what happens when you mix your smartness and knowledge with your ideology." I can't believe you're even suggesting what it sounds like you're suggesting, that R' Goldwicht is blinded by an ideology that prefers living in Galut to living in Eretz Yisrael. This is, what, the first time you've ever heard R' Goldwicht speak?
Perhaps you should become familiar with his ideology before you talk. Since you don't have the privilege of speaking to him in person, you can listen/read his shiurim online here and here, among other places.
In an earlier comment, I wrote: "Based on what was mentioned in the original post, I would hesitate to say R' Goldwicht "denigrated the life choice of a room full of people," as you put it, even only mildly. Doesn't sound like he was telling them all to pack their bags and hop on the first plane back to America. From what is reported here, he cited a statistic and observed that there is a certain danger in Eretz Yisrael arising from the fact that everyone is Jewish, making it more difficult to screen out bad influences. I don't know what he was referring to when he said there is no community in Israel, Medad doesn't really explain very much in the original post. If I had to guess, I would say he was just trying to point out issues that religious Jews living in Eretz Yisrael need to be aware of, not claiming that living in the Golah is better. But I wasn't there, and based on this alone, I don't see what all the fuss is about." Now that I've spoken with R' Goldwicht, it is even clearer that his comments were misinterpreted.
As part of his sicha (which was in Hebrew; perhaps this was the reason some of those present misunderstood him), R' Goldwicht addressed the issue of a surrounding culture, pointing out that in America, Jews are safer from certain dangers simply because they are more aware of the dangers that surround them. The line between US and THEM is very clear, which affords a certain protection from the negative influences of the surrounding culture. In Eretz Yisrael, R' Goldwicht observed, it is not quite so easy to protect one's children from negative influences, as those negative influences are coming from other Jews who look and speak like everyone else. For some reason, pointing out an issue the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael should be aware of was misunderstood by some as justification for living in the Golah, which could not be further from the truth.
He also mentioned communities like Teaneck and Englewood as examples of Jewish communities, which don't exist in Eretz Yisrael. (I can't recall exactly what difference he was trying to illustrate by mentioning them, but I think it was again something to do with the fact that they still have a clear US and THEM.) This was misinterpreted by Medad et al. as the entire concept of community not existing anymore in Eretz Yisrael.
Far from saying the concept of community doesn't exist anymore in Eretz Yisrael, R' Goldwicht was calling on the YU community, in America and in Eretz Yisrael, to come together to address this issue, a very pressing one considering the statistics he cited. For Rabbi Reuven Aberman to come back at him with statistics about assimilation in America is neither here nor there - R' Goldwicht was not suggesting that there is no danger of assimilation in America, nor was he addressing those denominations of American Judaism in which intermarriage is an issue, but was simply raising an issue that religious Jews in Eretz Yisrael cannot ignore.
Anyone who knows R' Goldwicht recognizes that he is truly an inspirational figure, a warm, caring individual who loves every member of Klal Yisrael and every millimeter of Eretz Yisrael. To say he was promoting living in the Golah over living in Eretz Yisrael is disingenuous, to say the least, as he was not even attempting to justify living in the Golah in the first place, but discussing Eretz Yisrael. This is a severe misinterpretation of his words.
To make matters worse, R' Goldwicht's apology was also poorly phrased by whoever translated it and sent it out, suggesting that his original comments contained a negative message which he later retracted, which again could not be further from the truth: he raised an issue that the YU alumni in Eretz Yisrael need to be aware of and combat as a community, and unfortunately his words were misunderstood by some of the alumni present. In no way were his original comments critical of those who made the difficult sacrifice of aliyah. Quite the contrary, they were intended to buttress the community of alumni in Eretz Yisrael, to make them aware of an issue that has caused others in the past to return to America so that they can take care of the issue as a community.
I hope this puts the matter to rest.
TallisKatan (is that a Freudian slip?) suggests that we in the room did not undrstand Rav Goldwicht's Hebrew. Not only is that laughable, and perhaps degrading, but it just goes to show how haughty some Galut Jews can be in trying to defend an indefensible position. He also suggests twice more, I think, that we did not understand. Perhaps Rav Goldwicht could not make it understandable or that despite all his sterling qualities, he is an incomprehensible person in some matters like the Diaspora-Israel relationship issue? He then goes on to criticise the apology. In other words, Rav Goldwicht can not only make himself understood in Hebrew before a live audience but he has difficulty in making an apology properly. Wow, this is an amazing development. In other words, everyone is wrong (the audience, his translator, his bosses) and it is only we poor people who have to bear the brunt of his criticism who are wrong.
I think TallisKatan is too passionate, too adulatory and too one-sided to see that a simple error was made. It happens. Living in America a few years longer than you intended to be on "shlichut" can do that. Your Rebbitzen could do that. Your job opportunity could do that. The good work that you do could do that. Just don't go blaming everyone and everything else other than yourself and all will be okay.
Wow, YMedad, you certainly have a way with (twisting) words.
Clearly you and some of your colleagues were offended by what you thought R' Goldwicht was saying. If someone actually said what you think R' Goldwicht said, I would be upset too. However, to refuse to listen to the rational explanation, even when it is spelled out for you clearly by someone who spoke with R' Goldwicht, and to continue your attempt to assassinate his character with great fervor and zeal even afterwards, takes a substantial amount of hubris, perhaps even more than that you have accused those of us in Galut of having. (BTW, I pointed out the fact that the sichah was in Hebrew for those who were not present, not as a slap in the face to those who were.)
In other words, everyone is wrong (the audience, his translator, his bosses) and it is only we poor people who have to bear the brunt of his criticism who are wrong.
No, not everyone is wrong. Only those in the audience (it was not everyone, I am told) who misunderstood him. His boss, Richard Joel, is a politician, whose job is to keep people happy. If some people got upset, it is Joel's job to calm them down, even if they got upset because they misunderstood. As for the apology, it was poorly translated, not poorly phrased by R' Goldwicht. He had no trouble indicating to me exactly what he was sorry about -- that some of you in the audience misunderstood and continue to misrepresent what he said.
If I was "too passionate, too adulatory, and too one-sided," as you say, I probably wouldn't have waited until speaking with R' Goldwicht before claiming you were wrong. The fact that I waited to hear both sides of the story (unlike yourself, I might add) testifies to my intellectual honesty. The only one-sided person here is the one who continues to lambast R' Goldwicht even after hearing his rational explanation.
I was there, and I think that it's a lot of nerve for people who weren't to try to "drash" or "spin" what they think he may have said or meant.
There were hundreds of us in the room who function daily in Hebrew, and we understood what he said
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/2006/03/yes-i-know-ive-been-busy.html
And don't be naive, those apologies are generally written by a "committee" of PR experts. It was released by YU, not the rabbi himself.
Well, muse, we have BSimcha (his comment is at the bottom of the original post, who was there and disagrees with Medad's misinterpretation of the events. No "drash" or "spin." And I personally spoke with R' Goldwicht, I didn't say what I "think he may have said or meant."
What's really going on here is you and Medad (et al.) are reluctant to admit you erred, especially now that you have written so disparagingly of R' Goldwicht. (To be quite honest, even if R' Goldwicht had spoken critically of Eretz Yisrael, the harsh language you employ to describe him would still be considered appalling. Seriously, diagnosing him with "emotional problems"?) You are only digging yourselves in deeper by continuing your attempted character assassination.
Again, I have no dispute with talmidim seeking to defend the honor and reputation of their Rabe'im. I think it worthy. But, as we all know, one reason we have a written down Oral Law is becuase it is difficult to trust one's memory of what was exactly said, what was exactly intended to be said and what was understood as being said.
Rav Goldwicht may have thought what he was saying was crystal-clear. I know this is difficult for talmidim to do, but trust me on this, it wasn't. If anything, he was disparaging of EY has a Torah place and pointed out shortcomings, some real, some, well, unreal. We try to deal with these problems. And we deal with them here, in Eretz-Yisrael. And we don't ever, ever suggest that it is easier to be Jewishly orthodox or whatever term is used in Galut because, of all reasons, it is easier to protect oneself from goyim, because they are so different than from Jews who are secular. And we don't suggest that education is bad because we don't know all the teachers, as Rav Goldwicht quite clearly said. And we don't doubt that we have "community" in EY.
As I have pointed out earlier, I am not blindly defending any and all problems. I don't suggets we ignore them or not discuss them. But Rav Goldwicht's talk was addressed squarely to that issue, it was done in poor langauge, at the wrong context (YU increasing its presence in Israel) and did not allow for debate but was done as a mussar drush, more or less.
Now, if it was only lowly me, nu, I erred. But there were mamash Gedolei Torah there who were very upset. Some YU luminaries hung their heads in disbelief. Rav Goldwicht knows that. So, they all misinterpeted him? I passed him today at campus (I was invited to lecture a Poli. Sci. class and was walking with Menachem Butler at the time and did not want to get into an argument right there in the street, and besides, he was only wearing a suit and I had a coat and it was chilly) and I accept that he has a powerful influence and effect. Good. Last Shabbat was bad.
P.S. How many years has he been in NY on shlichut and how many years has he set for himself to be in Galut? I ask that because Mr. Jona Rechnitz doubts that Rav Goldwicht could remotely be encouraging Jews to move to America. IMHO, there could be some talmidim who could misunderstand his presence in Galut as, despite his own words, being an authorization that in some cases one can move. After all, he has done it and if I could misunderstand him, surely there must be some ontehr people at my level of comprehension who could misinterpret him, no?
But since we can never solve this matter, I am here in EY awaiting more YU graduates to come here and live fuller Jewish lives. Think, if I could come here and hundreds of other YU alumni without Rav Goldwicht's influence, how manymore should be able to come due to Rav Goldwicht's tremendous influence. Right?
And as for those who continue to claim I spoke disparaging of Rav Goldwicht, I am sorry but if the chet ha'egel was due to dibat haaretz, and we all know how bad that was, talmidei chachamim should be more careful in the langauge and imagery they themselves employ.
"But Rav Goldwicht's talk was addressed squarely to that issue, it was done in poor langauge [sic, ironically], at [sic] the wrong context (YU increasing its presence in Israel) and did not allow for debate but was done as a mussar drush, more or less."
So this whole kerfuffle is apparently due to the fact that Mr. & Mrs. Medad couldn’t handle a bit of mussar “addressed squarely” at issues facing religious families in Eretz Yisrael delivered at a conference dedicated to strengthening those same religious families in Eretz Yisrael.
Both versions of what transpired have been laid out on the table. The sheer chutzpah with which you speak of R’ Goldwicht, a true tzaddik and talmid chacham, certainly undermines your trustworthiness.
At any rate, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, the defamation of character and highly disrespectful remarks that accompanied your accusation and continue to grow ever more reprehensible, both on this blog and others, are highly inappropriate. Whatever your heter to leave Eretz Yisrael and come to New York today, you should have taken the opportunity as you passed R’ Goldwicht on the YU campus to beg his forgiveness.
If R’ Goldwicht is one of the meraglim, it’s Kalev or Yehoshua. Take your pick.
Ah, but being an Israeli already, I beg of no one. And thanks for the lesson in chutzpah. Did you pick that up from Rav Goldwicht or all by yourself? You are getting shriller and shriller my young man and it ill besuits a Torah scholar to lose his cool so inauspiciously.
Just remember - without any reflection on Rav Goldwicht but on this blind support - that too many talmidim so caught up with reverence for their Rebe'im got stuck in awful situations in our history. For a school such as YU, with its emblem emblazoned with Torah and Madda, I would suggest a litle less passion and more introspection as to the issues at hand, not honor. No one's personal honor, not mine, not anyone's is worth despoiling the value and worth of Eretz Yisrael, even inadvertently.
Please explain which part of my comment you found chutzpadik and exactly how much respect you think your fatuous allegations and your ad hominem attacks on R' Goldwicht (and myself, although those I can forgive) engender.
It takes much more than this to get me to lose my cool. Don’t flatter yourself.
Well, if you can't figure that out, I guess until you become a Tallis Gadol, I can wait. I think the problem with this disputation of sorts is that you can't get past the first hurdle: is there a slight possibility that perhaps, unintentionally or because he thought that that was the topic to discuss or that perhaps not having lived in Eretz Yisrael as we have been doing for the past few years, that the analysis, the statistics and the reasoning of Rav Goldwicht (who, again, for your benefit, I do not doubt his Torah knowledge nor his other positive traits) could be ever so slightly, dare I say it, wrong? Because if you do not accept that possibility, we are fruitlessly dialoguing, replacing venom for balm. I think he was but maybe he wasn't. Yout think he was right but do you conceive of the possibility that he could have erred?
As for the chutzpadik throwawy, I'll be charitable. If you can't figure it out by yourself, then why should I overstrain you.
I am very pleased to see you concede the possibility that you misunderstood his words. It would be nice if you would act as if you entertained that possibility and end this crusade to destroy his name.
If you'd like to take the next step and apologize for your conduct up until now, let me know and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Don't hold your breath. I wrote that I, brought up in true YU fashion, accept the possibility of being wrong. Obviously you don't. Too bad because you lose - as Rav Goldwicht has already apologized for what he did, or to be generous, for what everyone understood he did, I am absolved of the need to apologize. Two people can't apologize for the same thing.
And being Jewish, I don't go on crusades. And from some of the other postings, his "good name" seems to be in no danger from me but rather from a perception that his stay in NY was suspect long before I came on the scene. And I'm sure that once he returns to Eretz Yisrael, it will be such an encouragement for his talmidim to go on Aliyah that no one will lose out as all will be in EY and all will be happy. And then he can help us out here in the homeland to strengthen Torah and Torah behavior and Torah accomplishment. That, I've already admitted, we could do with. No problem there as I never wrote that all was fine and dandy.
And there'll be no Galut anymore.
Don't hold your breath.
Trust me, I’m not.
I wrote that I, brought up in true YU fashion, accept the possibility of being wrong.
If you accepted the possibility of being wrong, you would be far more careful with your words. Anyone who has been following your comments -- indeed anyone who finishes this paragraph in your comment -- can readily see that you do not, in fact, accept the possibility of being wrong, and that you never accepted the possibility of being wrong. To make it more obvious, let’s review some of your earlier comments: “What's important to me is that I know I'm right and even Rav Goldwicht knows he erred. And more importantly, the YU leadership know he goofed.” And who can forget this sanctimonious little number: “I think TallisKatan is too passionate, too adulatory and too one-sided to see that a simple error was made. It happens. Living in America a few years longer than you intended to be on ‘shlichut’ can do that. Your Rebbitzen could do that. Your job opportunity could do that. The good work that you do could do that. Just don't go blaming everyone and everything else other than yourself and all will be okay.”
Sorry, Medad, but no one buys that you ever accepted the possibility of being wrong. To borrow your wife’s words, you can try to “put a good spin on it, but as one of my friends said: ‘Four hundred people couldn’t all have misunderstood, exactly the same way.’”
Obviously you don't [accept the possibility of being wrong].
I’ve done my investigation. I’ve heard your report. I’ve heard your wife’s report. I’ve heard BSimcha's report. I’ve spoken with R’ Goldwicht at length about this particular incident. I have heard R’ Goldwicht speak about Eretz Yisrael both in shiurim, in private discussions, and in candid conversations countless times over the past several years. I have gathered as much information as I have available and reached an informed conclusion. You, on the other hand, have somehow managed to filter out everything that has been laid before you about R’ Goldwicht on your campaign (if you prefer that term over “crusade”) to besmirch him that can only be described as lishmah in that you stand to gain nothing more than a temporary spike in visits to your blog.
Too bad because you lose - as Rav Goldwicht has already apologized for what he did, or to be generous, for what everyone understood he did, I am absolved of the need to apologize. Two people can't apologize for the same thing.
I’m sorry, but I, brought up in true YU fashion, respect people’s reputations and don’t view this as a game to be won or lost. Although I appreciate your generosity, the apology has already been accounted for several times both on my blog and in the comments to yours, and to repeat what I have said is a waste of everyone’s time. Regardless, this is hardly two people apologizing for the same thing -- I am not suggesting that you apologize for R’ Goldwicht’s comments, but for your own (I suppose for your wife’s as well).
Again, if you truly accepted even the possibility of being wrong, you would not be so quick to condemn R’ Goldwicht, realizing you have a safek as to whether you must seek his forgiveness.
And being Jewish, I don't go on crusades.
As I mentioned before, I can switch to “campaign” if it makes you feel better.
And from some of the other postings, his "good name" seems to be in no danger from me but rather from a perception that his stay in NY was suspect long before I came on the scene.
I took you to task not for reawakening any suspicions about his good name but for your disparaging remarks and disrespectful tone first (before having reached any definite conclusion about what had actually been said) and for your spurious allegations second (once my investigation of what actually transpired was complete).
And I'm sure that once he returns to Eretz Yisrael, it will be such an encouragement for his talmidim to go on Aliyah that no one will lose out as all will be in EY and all will be happy. And then he can help us out here in the homeland to strengthen Torah and Torah behavior and Torah accomplishment. That, I've already admitted, we could do with. No problem there as I never wrote that all was fine and dandy.
As Jona Rechnitz points out above, he already is “helping you out there in the homeland to strengthen Torah and Torah behavior and Torah accomplishment.” Yet you seem to have a problem with R’ Goldwicht addressing issues affirmed by statistics with which he has experience from his interactions with religious families and youth living in Eretz Yisrael, as in your and your wife’s eyes he is just “some yored” with “emotional problems” blinded by an “ideology” that prefers the Golah to Eretz Yisrael which he feels he must justify by spreading “dibat ha’aretz.”
And there'll be no Galut anymore.
Bimheirah b’yameinu amen.
Well, I think we have exhausted this conversation and it ends, as usual with Jews, with everyone feeling they've won and all being wonderfully judgmental. TallisKatan cannot accept the possibility that he is wrong and so we're not going anywhere in dialoguing.
I presume we'll need a few years of perspective before we can look back and see who was right and who was wrong. Maybe even Tishbi will be here to resolve our questions.
One thing does really bother me, though and TallisKatan never really addressed it thoroughly, IMHO. Why did Rav Goldwicht apologize at all? If he was misunderstood, meilah. But he wrote that the thoughts in his heart were not reflected in the words from his mouth.
What were those thoughts that were not expressed adequately? And why did the words come out wrong? Was he indeed being a 'matif' or a 'doresh'? What did he want us to do together? Did he do something wrong or not?
I was taught at a young age that even if you aren't the cause of something going wrong, or that it's an accident I had little control of, you say you're sorry just to be nice.
In the end of this, perhaps Rav Goldwicht said a sort of "sorry" just like that. And you know what, after all this ruckus here and other places, and after being questioned by his talmidim, I would guess he'll never do something like what hed did at the YU Shabbaton in Yerushalyaim again.
And that's good enough for me.
And as Edward Murrow used to sign off: Good Night and Good Luck.
Fin.
RMG was originally brought into YU as the 2nd in a series of visiting roshei yeshiva from Israel who were meant to stay a year and then go back. The first was Rav Natan Bar-Chaim of Machon Lev who came in 1988-89. In 1989-90 RMG came for what was meant to be a one-year appointment. R. Norman Lamm loved him - as did the student body - and that became a 2 year appointment, and then an open-ended appointment. I'm not sure whether or not RMG's green card came before the "visiting israeli RY" program ended or after. But you get the picture. RMG was the second and last of the visiting Israeli RY at YU.
That being said, I'm not sure that I would see his "yerida" in any different context than the Zionist RY in YU that say they will eventually make Aliyah or the "Mitzvat Yishuv Haaretz" RY who say they will eventually fulfill the mitzvah. Neither of these groups have done what they said they would do. See Yoel Bin-Nun's article in the Orthdoox Forum series for a good summary of the halachic issues regarding not making Aliyah vs. Yerida. One will find that they are not so different from each other and that not making Aliyah may actually come ot as a "worse" situation halachically than "leaving". So I have no quibble with the choice of speaker at the program. Just with ending the program of visiting YU RY and with the dearth of Aliya by indiginous YU RY since RAL came in the early 1970's.
That being said I think RMG pretty much has his head in the sand when examining the issue of kids going off the derech and the issue of communities in Israel vs. America. He has a rose colored view of Orthodox Jewish life in the USA. In another 10 years or so it will be impossible to be Modern Orthodox for someone not in the upper decile of income earners in the USA - an impossible position for the community as a whole to maintain.
all of you busha v'cherpah speaking about a talmid chacham and a true eved hashem as if he was some hollywood actor or a rock star where is ur respect your kavod for talmidye chachamim an deven moreso Rav Goldvict and to question his love and devotion for am yisrael and eretz yisrael- is a chillul hashem in itself. I understand if one dosent fully understand what rav goldvict meant all u you had to do is ask him to clarify but to suggest that he is chasveshalom a meragel and a golus jew be ashamed and now that we are in ellul many and many of you have to ask for mechila!!! If it wasnt for Rav goldvict many jews would have made aliyah many families would have been stuck in galus . mamah busha v'cherpa- shana tova and gemar chatima tova
And one year later, we still have talmidim who are blind and deaf. Let me know when Rav Goldwicht comes back to Israel, to stay. Why send others when he can come?
It can't succeed in fact, that's what I believe.
Post a Comment