« Everything I learned, I learned in the garden | Main | Bar your entrances »

January 31, 2007



You seem to imply in your first paragraph that R' Slifkin is a BT. He isn't.


I think Avakesh's implication is that his work was addressing primarily the questions and needs of BTs.


"The divide between the right wing of Haskala and its Chareidi detractors had never been bridged; it is just that the opponents of Haskala renamed the situations that they were willing to tolerate, so that they may survive. Now they are stronger and are reopening hostilities. The Slifkin ban violated the tacit truce and upset the delicate balance, and old wounds are now opened again."

This is brilliant, particularly when juxtaposed with the BT movement. I am going to expound on this when I have a chance, bli neder. Please check your email as well.


This isn't nearly as offensive as the Kvetcher's piece. Kudos on this post, while I do disagree, my disagreements are more clarification-based (and your explanation of BTs really made me examine the difference between BTs and converts in a new way, so kudos for that).

I would say, though, that you are falling prey to a common fallacious idea: that of the haredi monolith comprised of only one point of view. On no subject beyond "anochi Hashem Elokeichem" is there THIS much charedi consensus.


R. Slifkin is not a BT but he comes from a non-Chareidi background and shares some features with BT's. As pointed out by a commenter, that was not my intent, anyhow.

Hi, Y-Love. We have met in one of your places of learning and I follow your work. I agree that Chareidism is not a monolith. People are people and they hold different opinion and use various approaches. I will be vigilant to make sure that this is clear in the future pieces.

I am not sure that there is much consensus on Anochi... either. Thank you for your comments.

The comments to this entry are closed.