Natan Slifkin's Blog, page 176

February Lecture Schedule - UPDATED

Here is the schedule for my forthcoming lecture tour in the US, for lectures that are open to the public:
Shabbos February 1-2 - Ahavas Achim, West Orange, NJSunday February 3 - Zoo Torah at the Turtle Back Zoo in West Orange - download flyer hereTuesday February 5 - Kingsway Jewish Center, Brooklyn - 8pm Lecture: "What A Jew Must Believe." Admission $10 non-members, $5 Kingsway membersShabbos February 8-9 - Young Israel of Plainview Sunday February 10 - Afternoon - Two lectures at the Bridge Shul in Washington Heights - details on this flyer. Evening - Lecture at Beth Hadassah in Great Neck, 8pm, The Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought.
If you are able to give me a ride to/from any of my engagements to/from the Five Towns, please write to me.

Also, if you live in Teaneck or the Five Towns, and you are interested in hosting a parlor meeting to raise funds for the Encyclopedia and Museum, please be in touch.

February Lecture Schedule

Here is the schedule for my forthcoming lecture tour in the US, for lectures that are open to the public:
Shabbos February 1-2 - Ahavas Achim, West Orange, NJSunday February 3 - Zoo Torah at the Turtle Back Zoo in West Orange - download flyer hereTuesday February 5 - Kingsway Jewish Center, Brooklyn - Lecture: What A Jew Must BelieveShabbos February 8-9 - Young Israel of Plainview Sunday February 10 - Two lectures at the Bridge Shul in Washington Heights - details to come
If you are able to give me a ride to/from any of my engagements to/from the Five Towns, please write to me.

Also, if you live in Teaneck or the Five Towns, and you are interested in hosting a parlor meeting to raise funds for the Encyclopedia and Museum, please be in touch.

Sugar for Elephants

Longtime followers of my work will remember the brouhaha surrounding elephants and olives. Several years ago, it transpired that some people not only believe that Chazal (the Sages of the Talmud) were omniscient and infallible about scientific matters, but also the Rishonim (the Torah scholars of the medieval period).

In one episode, I was asked by some students about a Tosafist stating that an elephant could be made to jump up in the air, with all four legs, in order to retrieve food. I responded that this is not possible (elephants can rear up on two legs, but not jump entirely into the air). I pointed out that the Tosafist concerned had never seen an elephant, and would reasonably have believed it to be possible that elephants can jump. (See The Case Of The Jumping Elephant.) This led to a minor uproar; how could I accuse the Tosafist of being wrong?!

In another episode, I wrote a monograph to explain why the Rishonim of Ashkenaz, unlike the Rishonim of Sefarad, rated the kezayis as being such a large quantity. My answer was that the Rishonim of Ashkenaz never saw olives and were misled into thinking that they are large. Despite the overwhelming evidence that I brought for this, including testimony to this effect by some Ashkenaz Rishonim, my monograph was nevertheless rejected by a certain halachic journal on the grounds of it being insufficiently appreciate of the greatness of the Ashkenazi Rishonim.

In a similar vein, I have recently been engaged in debate with various people regarding the identifications of various animals in the Torah given by European Rishonim (such as identifying the tzvi as the deer, and the shafan as the rabbit). When I pointed out that these Rishonim were unfamiliar with the animals of Israel (such as the gazelle and hyrax), and were thus unable to correctly identify the animals of the Torah, the response was that I did not appreciate that these Rishonim did indeed possess such knowledge, due to divine inspiration or suchlike.

Of course, my position can be well defended; since there is widespread support for saying that even the Sages of the Talmud possessed no special knowledge of the natural world, certainly the same is true for the Rishonim. Still, it always helps to have additional and specific support. And so I was pleased when my friend Yeedle made a great discovery regarding sugar.

What berachah should be made upon eating sugar? Usually we make she'hakol on the juices and extracts of fruits, because by extracting the juice from a fruit, it is no longer halachically a fruit. But one of the exceptions to this rule is if the fruit was planted specifically for the purpose of extracting its juice. In such cases, the juice itself is considered the fruit, and one makes a berachah of  borei pri ha'etz.

The Tur, i.e. Rabbi Yaakov, son of the Rosh, following his father, rules that one says borei pri ha'etz on sugar. He explains that since the sugarcane itself isn't edible, it must be that the canes are planted for the extraction of their juice in order to make sugar, and therefore the sugar is considered as the fruit of the sugarcane, it deserves the berachah of ha'etz.

However, none less than Rav Yosef Karo negates the Tur's view, as follows:

 ואני אומר שאילו היו קנים הללו נמצאים בארצו של הטור לא היה טוען כן. שבמקום שנמצאים מוכרים מהם לאלפים ולרבבות למצוץ אותם. 
And I say, were these canes found in the land of the Tur, he wouldn't have made such a claim. Because in the places where they are found, they are sold in the thousands and ten thousands to be sucked. (Kesef Mishneh, Berachos 8:5)

In other words, since sugarcane only grows in tropical regions, the Tur was not sufficiently familiar with it, and did not realize that it is commonly grown to be eaten as sugarcane. (R. Karo's view is approvingly cited by Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 202:13.)

Again, it's not really any great chiddush that Rav Yosef Karo did not consider the Tur to know about the whole world. But in today's Orthodox Jewish society, it's certainly a chiddush to some people, and so it's very useful to be able to point it out.

(Thanks to Yeedle for his help with this post; he also pointed out to me that there are those, such as Ramban in Berachos 36b, who disagree with the Tur not only because sugarcane is edible, but also because they say sugar can't be rated as fruit.)

Level-Headed Businessmen

Someone by the name of Warren had an objection to the previous post (which is one of the top ten most-read posts on this blog of all time), regarding my criticism of open-ended mass kollel:

"You have yet to explain why thousands of level-headed intellectual and rational American businessmen support the kollel system worldwide by pouring in millions of bucks to keep it going. They evidently understand its importance, which we guys don't."

So, allow me to explain it. They may well be level-headed intellectual and rational businessmen, but that doesn't mean that they have been correctly educated about Jewish values. These businessmen have been indoctrinated by the charedi educational system to believe that there is religious virtue in the modern kollel system, so naturally they support it. Many have them have been led to believe that they are part of a traditional Yissacher/Zevulun partnership (whereas, in a posted entitled Is Kollel Rooted In Yissacher/Zevulun, I demonstrated that this is not the case.) Some of them undoubtedly feel that they can make up for their own "failure" of leaving yeshivah by funding those who stay.

Besides, there is a powerful example of how level-headed intellectual and rational businessmen don't necessarily make wise choices when it comes to religious matters. Just consider the case of Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, who has some extremely high-profile businessman amongst his supporters. (See too Nahum Barnea's article, Pinto Case Reveals The Power of Israel's "Tycoon-Rabbi" Class.)

The good news is that I know many businessman who have become post-charedi (often thanks to the actions of the Gedolim in the Torah-science controversy), and who now give their charity dollars to worthy causes instead of harmful ones.

Not For The Reason You Might Suspect

A lot of people assume that I am critical of the charedi world due to bitterness about the ban on my books. I suppose it's a reasonable hypothesis, and I can't be objective about myself. However, to the best of my self-awareness, it's not the case. I have different reasons.

As I have written on many occasions, most notably in my essay "In Defense Of My Opponents," I am extremely sympathetic to the ban on my books. Of course, I don't think that my books are actually heretical, and the ban was handled extraordinarily badly, causing me a great deal of pain. But I certainly agree that the rationalist approach is harmful for many people, and that the charedi leadership has the right, and perhaps even the duty, to attempt to keep it out of their community.

To my mind, the problems with the charedi community are not its opposition to science and rationalism. Vastly more problematic are, for example, its approach to abuse, with Ami magazine's recent interview with Weberman's defense attorney (but not the attorney for the prosecution!) being the latest example. Another serious problem with the charedi world is its utter mishandling and abuse of the concept of rabbinic authority, with major decisions being made in a non-transparent way, by people who lack the proper knowledge, wisdom and input to make such decisions, and being manipulated all the way through by askanim.

Still, to my mind, these problems, as grave as they are, do not fundamentally invalidate charedi society in its entirety. Every community has its problems. Chabad has its crazy messianism. Modern Orthodoxy fails to produce adequate teachers to perpetuate itself. Religious Zionism struggles with political extremism.

The biggest problem with charedi society (certainly here in Israel; I'm not sure about the US), the one that makes it a failure, is something else: the charedi approach of mass, open-ended kollel, with the notion of work being, at best, a choice for second-class citizens, and at worst, something less preferable to collecting at people's doors. This goes hand-in-hand with educating one's children to follow the same path, and denying them the education and (more importantly) the inclination to do anything else.

As I've written previously, this is completely untraditional, or, if you want to sound more frum, against the mesorah (see my post The Invention of Kollel, and my paper on The Economics of Torah Study.) It also goes against numerous statements in Chazal about the value of work, the problem of casting oneself upon the community for support, and the obligation to train one's children to be able to provide for themselves. It goes against the kesubah, in which a man accepts to “work for, esteem, feed and support” his wife. It goes against the very fundamental nature of human society, across all times and cultures.

The problems that it causes are catastrophic, and extend far beyond the financial poverty of the people in kollel. Parents drive themselves into deep debt in order to marry off their children, which requires buying them apartments and supporting them for many years, even forever. Shidduchim are made and broken on the basis of money. An often unbearable strain is put on the wife, who is expect to not only give birth to, and raise, many children, but shoulder the burden of earning money (in contrast to the kesubah). The men themselves often feel unfulfilled and inadequate (which they are). And poverty itself is the cause of many problems with shalom bayis. And it's a problem that just gets worse and worse with each generation; for each child that goes a little "off" and attends one of the new charedi vocational training schools, there are five that don't.

In Israel, the problem is compounded. Not only is there an entire community that simply shirks its responsibility in sharing the national burden of serving in the army, pretending (to itself as well as others) that learning in kollel is an adequate substitute). It also drains from the national economy instead of contributing to it (and I'm not just speaking about money - I am talking about not putting skilled people into the workforce). The result is a community that is fundamentally selfish - taking and not giving.

(It could be that living in Ramat Bet Shemesh makes me especially sensitive to this problem. I am surrounded by hundreds of lovely Anglo charedi-wannabe families, in which the husband has a good job thanks to his college education, and/or there is a lot of parental support. But they send their kids to charedi schools in which there is little or no secular education, and even more significantly, the kids are educated with the Charedi ideal that work is for people who fail. The children will never be able to support themselves to the level of security and comfort that they have grown up with and become accustomed to; instead, they are on the path to all the problems mentioned above, which will be even worse when they themselves have children.)

I was gradually working along this line of thinking even before my books were banned. The ban just helped remove the emotional ties that hindered me from seeing the conclusion.

Musings on Metzitzah

In the previous post, I mentioned that I adopted a seemingly anti-rationalist approach regarding metzitzah at my son's bris on Sunday. No, the mohel did not do metzitzah b'peh. But he did perform metzitzah via a tube. And as someone asked me, Why do metzitzah at all?

As explained at length in the seminal article by my friend Shlomo Sprecher, "Mezizah be-Peh: Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige?", Chazal clearly instituted the oral suction of blood from the circumcision wound due to their belief that it was medically beneficial - as Chazal themselves stated. Much later, it was realized that it is in fact potentially dangerous rather than beneficial. Halachic authorities such as Chasam Sofer, who analyzed the issue based on solely halachic aspects, thus ruled that oral suction need not be performed. (Those who took a meta-halachic approach, due to perceived threats to traditional Judaism, inflated the role of metzitzah b'peh; see my paper on "The Novelty of Orthodoxy".)

However, the halachic authorities who discounted the need for metzitzah b'peh still ruled that blood must be extracted from the wound via other means, such as with a sponge or via sucking it through a tube. An article in the latest volume of Hakirah by Rav Moshe Tzuriel of Bnei Brak, which stridently argues against performing metzitzah b'peh, still insists that it is unthinkable to do without metzitzah altogether.

But why? If metzitzah b'peh was only instituted in the first place due to a particular medical concern, and we now see that in fact it is of no medical benefit, then why do any form of suction?

The answer is very straightforward. To quote Tevye, "Because it's a tradition!"

Sure, sucking blood from the wound via a sponge or tube is of no apparent medical benefit. But on the other hand, it doesn't do any harm either. And since Jews have been doing this for thousands of years, why tamper with the practice? Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, is inherently conservative in nature. It is also in a fragile state due to its confrontation with modernity. Therefore, it should be tampered with as little as possible. (This really needs expanding upon at greater length, but it's difficult to do so with a baby on my lap.)


Before concluding this post, I would like to raise another point on this topic. There is currently a furious reaction by the Charedi community in the US to the proposal that parents must be informed of the medical risks involved with metzitzah b'peh. (I saw a letter from the "International Bris Association" which, demonstrating an astonishing lack of self-awareness, accused the Health Authority of being biased!) I wonder: suppose the requirement was that Mohelim, instead of having to tell the parents that there are medical risks, had to inform parents that Chassam Sofer and many others said that if doctors claim that metzitzah b'peh is potentially dangerous, it need not be done. Would people still object, and if so, on what basis?

My Speech at my Son's Bris

(Here is part of my speech at my newborn son's bris this past Sunday, and an extract from the Powerpoint presentation. In the next post, I will discuss and explain the seemingly anti-rationalist approach that we took regarding metzitzah, and explain why it is not anti-rationalist after all.)

Our newborn son, Menachem Asher, has gotten off to an auspicious start in life. He seems determined to make life easy for his parents. He popped out into the world earlier than expected, on the first night of Chanukah, thereby making things much easier in terms of making arrangements for the kids while we went to hospital. And having a bris on the eighth day of Chanukah takes all the effort out of coming up with a dvar Torah.

Of course, one can speak about the significance of the number eight for both Chanukah and Bris Milah. Seven symbolizes creation and the natural world. Eight represents rising above the natural order. Greek culture idolized the natural world, the human form and the natural order. Antiochus prohibited circumcision under penalty of death. Bris milah represents the idea of Jews rising above the natural order. But I would like to speak about a different aspect of Chanukah which ties in to the name and namesake of our son.

As I explain at length in my forthcoming Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, there is a certain animal that is integral to Chanukah. It’s not the elephant; it’s the leopard, which symbolized Greece in Daniel’s prophetic vision of the Four Kingdoms. The leopard’s trait is azzus, brazenness, which represents Alexander of Macedonia’s brazen expansion of his empire. However, there is no such thing as a negative trait. Brazenness can also be used for the good; as it says in Avos, “Be as brazen as a leopard to do the will of your Father in Heaven.” The positive manifestation of brazenness is to stand up for what’s right and not to be intimidated by those who mock or persecute you. The Maccabees used brazenness for the good in fighting for the Jewish people without being intimidated by the Greeks.

Our son is named after his grandfather, my father, whose Hebrew name was Menachem Asher. He was a ba'al teshuvah, a brilliant scientist and a pillar of the community, but what I would like to speak about is the trait that he shared with the Maccabees.

My father was not the kind of person that you would think of as being brazen. He was very quiet, shy, good-natured and mild-mannered. But he exemplified the positive aspect of azzus. He possessed incredible integrity, and he would do what his conscience told him to be the right thing regardless of whether it was popular. In Manchester he voted Labor, which he did because he felt it was kinder to the poor. To give some indication of how much this was going against the popular trend in the Jewish community, consider that many years later in Israel when he met a Mancunian and they were trying to figure out if they knew each other, the person finally said, “Oh, I know who you are – you’re that person who voted Labor!”

When my father started working at Machon Lev he realized that it was missing something that universities in England had - a safety officer who would be responsible for enforcing safety protocols. Needless to say, this did not make him the most popular person in the college. But he did it because he knew it was important.

I hope that my father’s legacy will live on through my newborn son. I hope that he will be good-natured and mild-mannered – but that he will stand firm to always do the right thing.

Kosher Certification for Maccabees

(A re-post from last year.)

Over Shabbos I dusted off my ancient copy of ArtScroll's Chanukah: Its History, Observance and Significance - A Presentation based upon Talmudic and Traditional Sources, written by Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm and published way back in 1981. The subtitle is interesting, because some of the primary sources used are only traditional in the loosest sense of the term. Presumably sensitive to this concern, the preface to the History section includes the following explanation:

...Through an understanding of the history of the period, we can gain a deeper insight into the significance of Chanukah itself. With this goal, we shall approach our historical inquiry into the events of the period.

For information, we are indebted primarily to the books of Maccabees I and II the authors of which lived relatively close to the time of the miracle (in the case of I Maccabees), or drew upon contemporary sources. The authorship of these books is unknown, but they were undoubtedly written by staunchly loyal Jews. Although there is evidence that I Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, both books were available only in Greek and Latin for over 1500 years and came down to us through gentile hands. For this reason, the two books were largely unknown to Jewish chroniclers and commentators until recent times... Despite the fact that the books of Maccabees are not mentioned in virtually any early classic Rabbinic work, we may assume that Jewish scholars would have accepted them, because they are cited by the great commentator to the Mishnah, R' Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (Tosefos Yom Tov, Megillah 3:6), and by the great halachist R' Eliyah Shapiro of Prague in his magnum opus Eliyah Rabbah to Orach Chaim 671:1. I know of only three other relatively early Jewish scholars who had access to Maccabees: R' Azariah min HaAdomim (De Rossi) in his Me'or Einayim (Imrei Binah ch. 16, 25, 25, 51, 55); and the disciple of R' Moshe Isserles, R' David Ganz (in Tzemach David, part I, year 3590). Nevertheless, it is fair to assume that such scholars would not have cited the books of Maccabees unless they were convinced of its reliability.

The reader should bear in mind that the period of Scripture was sealed prior to the events of Chanukah. No later book, even if it were historically accurate and true to the underlying spiritual theme of events it chronicled, could have been canonized. Consequently, the status of Maccabees as an apocryphal work does not, in and of itself, prove that it is not reliable.

In general, I'm not into the genre of "ArtScroll-bashing" - for the most part, ArtScroll is simply catering to the needs, desires and sensitivities of their readership, as well as understandably desiring to avoid trouble. But analyzing ArtScroll does afford an opportunity to understand the dynamics of the Orthodox community (as Dr. Yoel Finkelman has shown), and there are a number of observations to be made with regard to these paragraphs.

First, it's fascinating to see how sources are conferred with the status of "traditional," or its equivalent level of kashrus - something that I also have to do quite often. We are first assured that the authors of Maccabees were "staunchly loyal Jews." Then a justification is given for these works not being cited in classic Rabbinic literature. We are then told that prestigious later rabbinic authorities did make use of these works, and thus must have been convinced of their reliability. This also provides the importance assurance that had Chazal and the Rishonim had access to these works, "we may assume... that they would have accepted them." Finally, we are told that the stigma of being "apocryphal works" does not disqualify them "in and of itself," since they were written too late to be canonized. It's quite an elaborate set of justifications.

Also of interest is the statement that the citation of Maccabees by various Acharonim shows that they were convinced of its reliability (and hence we can also be convinced). What exactly does "reliability" mean in this context? Historical accuracy, or kosherness in Orthodox circles? It's hard to see how the citations by various Acharonim confer the former, so I assume that it means the latter, but I'm not certain.

Then, as I started to read the list of Torah scholars cited as endorsing Maccabees, I was intrigued to see R' Yom Tov Lipmann Heller as the first such authority cited. After all, he also quotes from R' Azariah De Rossi, a scholar whose name is anathema in many Orthodox circles, following the vehement condemnation of De Rossi by Maharal and (reportedly) by R. Yosef Caro. Reading on, I was flabbergasted to see that De Rossi himself is one of these authorities cited to show that Maccabees must be reliable! While it is encouraging to see that he is presented as someone who can be relied upon to show that something is reliable, it does raise some interesting questions. For if a source is "reliable" because it was quoted by R' Azariah, then we can also add a number of others to the list of works that Torah Jews can consider "reliable," including the works of Augustine, the works of Sebastian Munster, and the works of Annius of Viterbo (which are, ironically, completely unreliable).

Finally, if the Books of Maccabees are being quasi-canonized as reliable, traditional works, then what does this mean with regard to the reason for Chanukah lasting eight days? For II Maccabees explains the eight days of Chanukah not in terms of the miracle of the oil, but rather as due to the first Chanukah making up for the eight-day festival of Sukkos not having been celebrated in the Beis HaMikdash that year. And Josephus, who is also mentioned in the ArtScroll Chanukah, had a very surprising explanation as to why Chanukah is called "the festival of lights". This is a problem that has been hotly debated in recent years. For a variety of perspectives, see Rabbi Dr. David Berger's article, the comment thread on this post, R. Josh Waxman's discussion - and if anyone has any other useful links, please submit them.

Now, of course it is to be expected that an ArtScroll work is only going to present the view of the Bavli, that the reason for eight days of Chanukah is due to the miracle of the oil (which is also presented in Megillas Antiochus, of uncertain antiquity). But it is interesting that when presenting that account (on p. 55), it adds that when this happened, "they celebrated the rededication of the altar for eight days and offered up peace and thanksgiving offerings." Where did this come from?

It seems to me that this is incorporating the view of II Maccabees, that there was a reason for celebrating the initial eight days that had nothing to do with the oil, but rather was due to there having been an initial eight-day festival which Chanukah commemorates. ArtScroll doesn't give Maccabees' reason as to why they celebrated for eight days, but the fact of describing an eight-day celebration in that first year itself implies that there was a reason that was independent of any miracle involving the oil. (I don't think that quoting this reason is necessarily undermining the reason given by the Gemara; after all, Megillas Taanis also gives two reasons for the eight days.)

Note that much later in the work on p. 95, when discussing the famous question of the Beis Yosef regarding why we have eight days of Chanukah rather than seven, it quotes Megillas Taanis (in the scholia - later additions) that there was an eight-day rededication celebration, and then cites Birkei Yosef as saying that the extra day that we celebrate commemorates this rededication. But Birkei Yosef did not quote Megillas Taanis as saying that there was an eight-day rededication celebration, and with good reason: because it does not say any such thing! As well as describing the miracle of the oil, Megillas Taanis says that it took eight days to repair the vessels of the Beis HaMikdash - not that there were eight days of celebrating its rededication. (Furthermore, Birkei Yosef does not give this as a reason for an eighth day, supplemental to celebrating seven over the miracle of the oil, but rather he says that the eight days of repair are the reason for all eight days of the current festival, and that the question of the Beis Yosef is therefore redundant!) It therefore seems to me that on p. 95, ArtScroll has subconsciously replaced the view of Megillas Taanis with the view of II Maccabees.

A Real Rationalist Chanukah Miracle

 

Baruch Hashem, mother and baby are well. Shalom zachar this Friday night!
(Please excuse me for not replying to emails.)

Strange Obituaries

When someone revered as great talmid chacham passes away, a plethora of praise is naturally forthcoming. Given the tragic nature of the event, it is regarded as being in very poor taste for anyone to dispute the accolades heaped upon the person who has passed away. Unfortunately, this means that all kinds of fabrications are able to be passed along unchallenged.

Well, as a person directly involved, I think that I have a license to issue such corrections.

Here is a letter that I sent to Rabbi Yair Hoffman eighteen months ago, in response to his hesped for Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz:

Dear Rabbi Hoffman,

I just read your hesped for Rav Michel Yehudah Lefkowitz at Vos Iz Neias. While I am sure that Rav Lefkowitz had many praiseworthy traits, I do not think that it is appropriate to praise someone in ways that are false - especially when their actions in these areas were the cause of harm to others.

You wrote about his "ehrlichkeit" and "unimpeccable (sic) honesty" and added that "he signed upon a number of Kol Korehs and always gave each of them the most profound reflection and thought." Well, I can attest that this is false. Rav Lefkowitz wrote a letter against my books (or signed a letter that someone had ghost-written) in which not only did he falsely claim that they contained kefirah, but he also claimed that those who wrote haskamos for the books had retracted them. Not only was this false, it was very easily proven false - all that he had to do was actually speak to the maskimim! I even sent a message to him before the letter was publicized notifying him of this falsehood, and his assistant told me that Rav Lefkovitz would investigate this and would remove this sentence if I was correct - but in fact he never spoke to any of them and the sentence stayed in even though it was not true.

Furthermore, when I spoke to his assistant in order to attempt to meet with Rav Lefkowitz to discuss his letter, his assistant reported back to me that he refused to meet with me. The assistant said that the reason for this, and I quote, was that Rav Lefkowitz did not actually read the books and did not really know what they were about. Instead, he was just relying on someone else, and so he did not want to meet with me, which would give the impression that he actually knew what it was all about.

Are these the actions of someone with ehrlichkeit? Are these the actions of someone who only signs Kol Korehs after giving them "the most profound reflection and thought"?

Incidentally, if you read Rav Nosson Kamenetzky's "Anatomy of a Ban," you will see that he reports similar shortcomings in Rav Lefkowitz's involvement with the ban on his books.

It would be better to restrict praise of the niftar to that which is true - surely there must be enough of it? - rather than to indulge in false praise that will force others to object.

Sincerely,
Natan Slifkin

This came to mind after this post at Garnel Ironheart's blog referred me to Jonathan Rosenblum's obituary for Rav Elyashiv. I'm sure that there is plenty of incontrovertible praise that could be given about Rav Elyashiv. Unfortunately, Rosenblum gives some praise that is very far from accurate:

Even after resigning, he remained ever a dayan in his conduct, refusing, for instance, to hear one party in a dispute unless the other party was also present. 

This is painful to read. I can attest that Rav Elyashiv signed a ban on my books, and against my being permitted to teach, based on second- or third-hand testimony as to the books' contents, in a campaign issued by crooks and frauds such as Rabbi Leib Pinter and Rabbi Leib Tropper. Furthermore, as Rav Nosson Kamenetzky attests in Anatomy of a Ban, Rav Elyashiv took actions against his books based on the false testimony of askanim, without asking Rav Kamenetzky for clarification. In fact, having been told numerous stories from people who were affected by rulings issues by Rav Elyashiv, the most common complaint that I heard was that he issued rulings on personal matters without hearing both sides, and that his handlers made it very difficult for people to get in and have their side of the story heard. (See especially this post, about how Mishpachah claimed that Rav Elyashiv's ban against it couldn't possibly be authentic because he never heard their side! Needless to say, it was authentic.)

Are there not enough good things to say about these rabbanim, that people have to praise them with statements that are utterly false?