The way you write about the latest ruling seems quite critical. As a frum jew who looks for guidence tward an ideal, I want to know what Rav Elyashivs is thinking. Am I near the ideal? I have to admit, no. But, I do want to improve and want to stay in touch with where I should be as a frum jew. This is why we need Rav Elyashiv or a another Rav who tells us the truth of where we should be and what we should really be doing.

First of all - IM THE REAL anonymous. Dont try to take away my name.

Rabbi Elyashiv is old and loosing it. Clearly. This is a medical issue not a political one. Between his age, mind, and his ego for power and control over all of creation, there is no doubt he will be requiring all chareidimn to move out of buildings where some of the tenants may not have kosher phones, any day now.

The Torah says when to ask a Rav: "Ki yipaleh mimcha davar". Anyone who cant figure out the stupidity of this on thier own -- is some serious issues to work out.

Boy is God laughing today....

what is a "kosher" phone?

I protest your disrespect of Rav Elyashiv.

I do not think he is power hungry and has ego for power and control. I think the people under him do. They push certain issues that maybe give them power and influence and they bring these issues before him and what shoul dhe do? should he say no way a phone with internet is fine? He has to say no. But i do not think it is his agenda rather that of those under him.

dan - a kosher phone is a c3ellphone that has all services other than telephone (talk) removed. no sms, no internet access, etc. All you can do with it is talk.

This blog has gone down hill alot. Poth the blog entries and the comments. Please explain to me why anonymous number 2 should not get punished in gehihom for writng that way? And why should the host of the blog not get punished for leaving hit up?

Yankel,

Let me try and explain something to you. In our religion, we don't look for reasons why people should be punished. We also don't rant and rave and make ourselves look like idiots; instead, we respond politely and firmly to things we oppose, and let other people make fools of themselves with their rants.

Oh, we also use spell check.

Mike,
I was attempting to generate some thought. You apparently think my post is more comment-worthy than the one I was commenting on. That, itself, shows skewed priorities. As far as spell checks go, it appears that I am in the company of both Rafi and anonymous in my ignorance of that halacha.

For the record, I sincerely hope that all Jews are zoche l'olam haba without any need for onshim.

yankel - maybe he should, maybe he should not. That is between him and God, not between him and me. I protested it and that is enough for me. I did not feel compelled to remove the comment. Maybe I am wrong, but I have my reasons...

about spellcheck, I generally spellcheck before I post, but occassionally in my haste I sometimes forget to and am guilty of posting with typos..

"occassionally" should only have one
"s"!

So talking on a phone is kosher but reading a message on a phone is treif? Is their some holiness attributed to voice? I thought we were the people of the book. If anything sms should be kosher and voice should be treif.

rafi,

I'm just curious - we're you a part of the convsersations between the askanim and Rav Elyashiv? Are you privy to the information they had when making their decision?
Do you have any shayachus to working with families and children broken up because of illicit internet use?
How much do you know about this situation that you're so comfortable writing about?

My guess? Little to nothing. I recognize however, that I coould be entirely wrong on that and please correct me if I'm wrong. I know that I know very little other than what I've heard from some askanim in the States who tell me it's a far greater problem than anyone would imagine. But I know that I know very little and therefore reserve an opinion. Why don't you try doing the same? I know it'll leave with you with less to blog about but the payoff will be worth it. We'll actually be able to take what you do write seriously.

Anon,

first, it is hard to take anything you say seriously if you post as anon.

second, by your logic no one can have any opinion on anything....were you in olmeret's war cabinet? were you in bush's cabinet meeting? Do you not have opinion's of any type? or is it only when an opinion is critical of your cult leader that you get huffy?

3rd, as we have learnt through all of history, banning something does little to nothing to stop a problem...ie: drugs, gambling,prostitution...let alone alocal ban of a product that is widely available. We have learnt that treatment for individuals who have a problem is effective and bans are typically counterproductive.

4th, if rafi's blog doesn't interest you enough then don't waste your time commenting (sorry for the presumption rafi but this ass really upset me with his cowardly illogical sycophantic attitude)

5th, a ban that is dogmatic and illogical without a rational explanation and is blanket upon all regardless of any consideration desearves to be challanged. When did your form of judaism become a catholic style cult of heirarchy?

I know, lets elect r'eliyashav pope and just put him on necklaces of magan davids and wall hangings, because your attitude is exactly the basis for christianity. I can understand why rabbi's would make such rulings, who wouldn't enjoy such power when they have people slavishly following.

dan - the concern with the sms and internet access is what becomes available and accessible on the phone that can harm the person. By having such things available, one could access pornography and the like and that could harm - spiritually, emotionally, etc. - the person.

anon - I am not going to argue whether it has harmed families and people. You can ask shrinks and other mental health doctors how many patients they get who suffer because of the internet. I do not doubt that there are numerous peple who have been harmed by it.

But will banning it solve the problem? Was nobody ever harmed by anything else until the internet and cellphones came along? This is the cure-all for all of frum societies ills?
Did no yeshiva boy go off the derech until the internet became popular? I do not think so. Maybe my brother can helllp us on this one. He was a yeshiva boy who became non-religious. As far as I know Internet had nothing to do with it. Maybe he can clarify it but I suspect it had to do with insensitive rebbeim and not having questions answered satisfactorily.

As far as the rest of what you wrote - I think Dan gave avery good response - we all have opinions on all sorts of things without being privy to all the information.
I would add though, that I said I suspect the process was one in which the askanim came to Rav Elyashiv with an agenda they were pushing. I sincerely hope that is true and accurate. The other possibility is that Rav Elyashuiv gets these ideas on his own, and I refuse to believe that. The man is completely one hundred percently (not really a word but it sounds good) immersed in Torah study. He does not think up these narishkeits on his own. He is presented with these things and asked to sign on it. If you seriously tell me that these takkanos are instigated by him on his own, then I am much more frightened by the situation then before. That th egadol hador would sign on it, is one thing. That he would think of this stuff and push it on his own puts even worse questions in my mind..

I would also like to add that there is a concept in halacha and in the gemara that a decree that cannot be withheld by the community is null and void. How do you understand that? The beis din/gedolim would make takkanos that they obviously felt were important for the survival of Torah-true yiddishkeit. Yet the poeple would not keep it for some reason. Maybe the takkana was not realistic. Maybe the people fel tthe gedolim making the decree were removed from the current reality. Who knows. No real difference anyway. The point is that the people did not listen to the gadol - they did not just say, the gadol said x y or z and we have to listen. Just the opposite. The gadols words were cancelled because the realities on the ground proved that his words were irrelevant and therefore not halachicaly valid.
The fact is the internet is here to stay, and even take over more of our lives. You talk about listening to the gedolim and they know better, and so many lives have been destroyed - all this while you blatantly ignore Rav Elyashiv's own words and you surf the internet. I do not suspect you of accessing pornography - maybe you do and maybe you don't, it does not interest me - but you conveniently find yourself ignoring the words you are defending.
The fact is Internet is here to stay and few people in today's world can get by without it. To ban it, and to ban cellphones, is ridiculous. I would even say it is a takkana that the tzibbur cannot and will not be able to uphold and will be battul.

Rafi,

First, there are many ways to enjoy debauchary through voice without the aid of sms or internet.

Second, the internet wasn't around when I became an atheist. At that time the net was just a whisper in the wind of some geek publication.
But I think it was much deeper than just lack of sensitivity or not great answers. Take this ban on cellphones for example. Here you have the undisputed? Gadol creating such an ivory tower, academia type, boneheaded, dogmatic decree and I am suppossed to believe that this guy is the person to rely on to explain and connect to the religion? Imagine how silly the talk is from rabbis who are not nearly as smart or learned. Sure there are a few rabbis who comefrom a secular backround, or studied in a university or even held a job, but most live in a rarefied air that has no real connection to the world today or the history of our people. They talk and talk and talk about all the unimportant pilpuls of rules without understanding or giving credence to reality. Just look at what they did to the line, don't boil a calf in its mother's milk.
So even if there were a god, I certainly wouldn't trust rabbis to know or relate or understand his/her/it's wishes.

So I had a choice, I could simply rely on faith and mortgage my life to the whims of other people, or I could take responsobility for my own choices and desires and exploration. I may be wrong but I will be wrong following my own path, not some fellow human's path.
There are pleanty of smart people and pleanty of libraries for every religion. The fact that a rabbi can dance pilpul on the head of a pin does not impress me. At the end of the day I see them as human. And humans have an almost infinate capacity to be wrong.

dan - I was explaining to you the differnce between voice and sms/internet which is the basis for the ban. I obviously do not agree with it (based on my various postings) and one of the reasons is the one you just mentioned. Voice porn and the like is just as easily available for someone looking for it. By the same token we should have the (snail) mail banned for the possibility of rceiving playboy magazines or indecent catalogs delivered, along with cars for the ability to drive to red light districts and along with air travel for the fear that one might be tempted to join the mile high club or pizza stores for the possibility one might see and develop a relationship with members of the opposite sex, along with miniature golf for alll the various types of debauchery that goes on there.

regarding the rest of your points, while you back up what I say in that the internet is not the source of all humankinds problems, let alone the beginning of a trend of people leaving the religious path, as it happened in the pre-internet days as well, I do disagree with you on some of what you said.
There is a difference between Oral Torah, which was passed down as tradition from teacher to student all the way back to Har Sinai (according to our belief in the Written and Oral Torah) and between a modern day decree in order to keep something in check. The modern day decree is more of a power struggle rather than a continuation of tradition.

and about Here you have the undisputed? Gadol creating such an ivory tower, academia type, boneheaded, dogmatic decree and I am suppossed to believe that this guy is the person to rely on to explain and connect to the religion? Imagine how silly the talk is from rabbis who are not nearly as smart or learned. - that was exactly what I meant when I said that that is the reason I suspect the method this happened by was one where the askanim and assistants brought the agenda forth and he simply relied on their integrity or maybe he was hoodwinked by them or who knows what, but he put his name on it based on their issues, rather than him pushing it himself. Otherwise your issue is my fear..

Dan G. wrote:

"first, it is hard to take anything you say seriously if you post as anon."

Dan - you're too funny - would it please you if I signed my name Dave G.? You're also anonymous by a different name. Use your real name if you believe so strongly about this.

"second, by your logic no one can have any opinion on anything...."

Incorrect - I simply asked whether he had real information that make his opinion worthwhile or was just spouting off. I agree with you that most opinions are rather worthless including mine about the war. That's why I don't blog about these things. I know that in my own field, [one which is frequently discussed by non-experts] most uninformed peoples opinions are laughable.

"were you in olmeret's war cabinet? were you in bush's cabinet meeting? Do you not have opinion's of any type?"

Again - I have opinons on things I know about.

"or is it only when an opinion is critical of your cult leader that you get huffy?"

I wasn't huffy and I think I answered your question for you. BTW - he's not my cult leader. I hardly have any idea what Rav Elyashiv says and only read about it on this blog.

"4th, if rafi's blog doesn't interest you enough then don't waste your time commenting (sorry for the presumption rafi but this ass really upset me with his cowardly illogical sycophantic attitude)"

Nowhere did I write that it doesn't interest me. I pointed out that it's not very reliable or to be taken very seriously when he blogs about things he knows little about. I'll try to keep this dialogue respectful and ignore your rantings.

"5th, a ban that is dogmatic and illogical without a rational explanation and is blanket upon all regardless of any consideration desearves to be challanged.

All I asked for was whether Rafi was privy to the info shared at the meetings that would allow him to state unequivocally that this was irrational? Is that too hard for you digest? Do you have a problem with my wanting to make sure that when Rafi writes about something he would actually know what he's talking about? Is that called refusing to allow for disseting opinions?

You really need to calm down and think about this.

"When did your form of judaism become a catholic style cult of heirarchy?"

I have no idea. I didn't know it was. Nor am I guessing, you're a very good judge of "my style of judaism" seeing as to how little attention you actually paid to my words.

"I know, lets elect r'eliyashav pope and just put him on necklaces of magan davids and wall hangings, because your attitude is exactly the basis for christianity. I can understand why rabbi's would make such rulings, who wouldn't enjoy such power when they have people slavishly following."

Like I said, calm down and perhaps we can talk like adults.

Rafi wrote:
"anon - I am not going to argue whether it has harmed families and people." You can ask shrinks and other mental health doctors how many patients they get who suffer because of the internet. I do not doubt that there are numerous peple who have been harmed by it.

Wonderful! So far we agree.

"But will banning it solve the problem?"

I have no idea but I can see why some might be led to believe so and would hesitate before accusing them of a power grab. Maybe they have evidence that it does stem the problem even if it doesn't solve it. [That seems to be the key difference her. I doubt they think it'll solve the problem. The probably believe it will stem it. I don't know but it's a reasonable guess - no?]

"Was nobody ever harmed by anything else until the internet and cellphones came along?"

That is a straw man. Let's stop cancer research because people die from other things. Obviously that's a silly position. For whatever reason, perhaps Rabbi Elyashiv believes that this is a big enough problem worth tackling even if it can't be totally solved.

"This is the cure-all for all of frum societies ills?"

Again - you're building up a strw man in order to demolish it.

"Did no yeshiva boy go off the derech until the internet became popular? I do not think so. Maybe my brother can helllp us on this one. He was a yeshiva boy who became non-religious. As far as I know Internet had nothing to do with it."

Sorry to hear about your brother but he's not the last word on the subbject and like I said, there can be a number of reasons. This is one of them.


"Maybe he can clarify it but I suspect it had to do with insensitive rebbeim and not having questions answered satisfactorily."

MAybe. And maybe it had to with having inconsiderate parents or a mean older brother or a desire to eat pork or anything else under the sun. I have no idea and if there's anything that can be done to help him and others like him, perhaps that hsould be brought to the attention of askanim as well.

"As far as the rest of what you wrote - I think Dan gave avery good response - we all have opinions on all sorts of things without being privy to all the information."

Read my response to him and you'll see why it's a very poor response.

Think about it rafi - if I have opinions on how shechita is performed and how to improve, do you really take them seriously? I don't know Hilchos Shechitah and never stepped foot into a Slaughterhouse and you would dismiss my words out of hand.

Now transpose that onto some of the issues you write about.

Furthermore, I can appreciate that you may not feel the same way about how to handle the situation but instead of blogging about how terrible the askanim are, why don't you do something that will work. Use your talents to write about the need to use the internet responsibly. Instead, you sit at your computer and write about Rav Elyashiv's power grabs.

it's funny but we just learned two interesting gemaras that have relevance to this discussion:
1. in Megilla 12a it says the wine was served "k'das" Mordechai and Haman. The explanation of this (one of them at least) is that Mordechai (and Haman, but that part is not relevant for this discussion so I will leave him out) served as a wine steward at Ahasverosh's party. Why did he do this? The explanation is (again, this is one explanation) that he tried to get the people to not go to the party. When he saw they woul dnot listen and go anyway, he became the wine steward so at least he would save them from "yayin nesech" - drinking non-kosher wine (a very serious offense). By him serving them the wine, he is lessening the severity of their participation.

In other words, Mordechai found solutions to help the Jews rather than just bang on the table with irrelevant decrees. He saw the decrees would not/could not work so he went out and actively participated in the party in his attempts to lessen the effect.

To compare, I woul dsay those making decrees that are irrelevant and cannot work would be better off working with the situation (internet) and finding ways to help the people be educated in proper use, or find ways to help people use it with minimizing the access and bad effects.

2. on Megilla 12b it says that Ahashverosh sent out a decree that men rule the house and they shoul dnot listen to the women.
The gemara says that because of this decree, the enemies of the Jews could not have been successful.
Why? Rashi explains that after the first decree of Ahashverosh, they perceived the decree as being so ridiculous that they assumed he was a fool. After that, there was no way they would have taken the second decree seriously. They woul dhave discounted it as the rantings of a fool.

To compare, lehavdil (not the people juust the idea): If one makes decrees that are irrelevant and fairlyu ridiculous, even if it is only perceived as being ridiculous, there is no chance the person will b taken seriously in the future.

Sure some people will listen. Ahashverosh probably had a core group of followers who thought the decree was brilliant, but to the wider public the perception was that it was foolish and he was foolish.
It is not just what you say, but how you say it and how it will be perceived. A decree on the internet is perceived in the wider public as being foolish and ridiculous. Sure there are some core followers who will wave the banner and not use internet. But in the wider public, the perception is that it is foolish (even if you think the ban has some actual necessity to it) and the risk is that the decreers will be perceived as being foolish and people will lose respect for them and not listen to future decrees/statements that might be not foolish or irrelevant.

A situation like this, according to the gemara, even if you feel the issue is so serious it warrants such drastic measures, needs to be dealt with in a way that does not cause one to be perceived as being foolish.

Rafi -

Your point is an interesting one and Iwonder whether you considered that perhaps
1. Rav Elyashiv and his handlers might have considered it as well and don't agree
2. or have a different understanding of the gemaras you cite
3. Know of conflicting Gemaras and resolve them differently?

I assume you're aware that he is at least as knowledgeable as you are and has a different view of the matter?

Not that any of those force you to agree with him or his "handlers". Regardless, can you at least recognize that this might not have been a "power grab" as you termed it but a legitimate attempt to deal with a problem?

I'm not sure I agree with it either but it beats the heck out of anything you and your fellow bloggers are proposing [basically do nothing and criticize the "power hungry hareidim"].

How about arranging a meeting with some of the "handlers" [youll be surprised to find that some of them are pretty normal and sincere people [I know two of them] who spend much of their time working for the klal rather than blogging in defense of their position.

Maybe you'll enlighten them or maybe they'll enlighten you. Seriously - think about it.

I hold no illusions on the matter - Rav Elyashiv is mroe than a million times smarter than me and knows many more times as much as me.
That being said, that does not stop me from having an opinion on the matter.

I could suggest that Rav Elyashiv is not aware of how such a decree is perceived by the people. He makes the decree (whether on hisown or by the urging of his askanim), and that is the end of it until the next group comes in and asks if they should do x, y or z. He is probably not aware of how it is accepted on the street. He has his hard-core followers who tell him how great and important it is. Is he aware of how the average guy in bet Shemesh or New York or anywhere else perceives this type of a ruling, let alone listen to it? I doubt it.

And by the way, according to the studies, the numbers of people using the Internet even in the Haredi community is going up continuously, not down. So I would even suggest that in his own community of followers, they perceive the decree as not relevant. Look at the number of haredi websites, message boards, forums, blogs, etc and how many participants they have and you will see that even among his home crowd the decree is generally not taken seriously. I think he is just not aware of how the decree is perceived on the street.

As well, I never claimed it was a power grab. That was one of the anonymous commenters who said it and I protested it and said I do not believe it. I said and I believe that it is not him but the askanim presenting it to him responsible for such decrees. I might be wrong and thetre might be another explanation, but that is what I believe.

And by the way, a haredi rav I know responds whenever he hears something in the name of Rav Elyashiv, that he does not believe it. He says that in general quotes in the name of anybody (without actual source from a sefer or some other way of proving it) are not reliable and, he says, regarding Rav Elyashiv it is very well known that you cannot believe anything you hear in his name - only if you heard it from him directly. This Rav told me that it is well known that Rav Elyashiv is usually misquoted and one cannot rely on anything said in the name of Rav Elyashiv, unless you hear it from Rav Elyashiv.
So I have no problem saying the askanim are responsible for pushing this agenda.

Rafi -
"I could suggest that Rav Elyashiv is not aware of how such a decree is perceived by the people. He makes the decree (whether on hisown or by the urging of his askanim), and that is the end of it until the next group comes in and asks if they should do x, y or z. He is probably not aware of how it is accepted on the street."

Again - you're expressing an opinion without actually knowing the facts. Try sitting down and talking to him. I've done it. He's pretty aware. Stop relying on "well-known" rabbanim and talk to him yourself.
When the slifkin issue broke there was much talk about how the rabbanim were manipulated into it and how they didn't know what they signed or how it was perceived in the streets. Instead of accepting that I spoke to a few of the signees myself - none of them took back their support for the ban evven months after it and it was very clear that they knew how it went over in the streets. Idiots they're not. They too, recognize that there's a public relations issue at play. They believe in their position however, more strongly. That doesn't mean I agree with them [no comment here implied or otherwise] but before you decide that tehy don't know how its taken, make sure your right. Its a heckuve allegation to make.

"And by the way, according to the studies, the numbers of people using the Internet even in the Haredi community is going up continuously, not down. So I would even suggest that in his own community of followers, they perceive the decree as not relevant...I think he is just not aware of how the decree is perceived on the street."

If he's so irrelevant, why do you and others make such a fuss and how could you claim that this is just "Just the latest in the list of choke holds applied by the Haredi leadership over their own followers."? Doesn't look like anyones choking, does it?

Could it be that he's aware that many won't listen but he feels the need to issue the protest anyhow? I know that Rav Shach often said [in my presence once and I've heard it from others] that he was grateful to the Satmar REbbe for protesting zionism so harshly because if he hadn't, then Rav Shach would have had to. IOW - sometimes there's a position that has to be assumed for the principle and so that people are aware that it's not lechatchila and must be carefully applied.

"And by the way, a haredi rav I know responds whenever he hears something in the name of Rav Elyashiv, that he does not believe it. He says that in general quotes in the name of anybody (without actual source from a sefer or some other way of proving it) are not reliable and, he says, regarding Rav Elyashiv it is very well known that you cannot believe anything you hear in his name"

If this is true then you need to revise the title of your post to "Allegedly Rav Elyashiv's latest ruling." Your title indicates that you believe he issued it. Which way is it?

Furthermore, as I've said, instead of decrying the ban on cellphones, get busy figuring out what does work and get to work on it. You'll be far more successful and avoid alot of sticky issues.

I will further point out that although many have ripped the Lakewood ban, it did have the very positive effect of mobilizing many communities to respond in a more positive way. I know of a at least eight communities [and there may be more] that held large gatherings where experts were brought in talking about the issues and how one should be on guard and how to safeguard a computer etc. IOW - it has brought alot of positive out.

Why not continue the trend?

that is a very interesting theory that I had not thought nor heard before. Maybe he does these things just because they need to be publicized. Sort of to keep the edges from getting too far away. Like The Satmar Rebbe. Even though he knows most people will not heed it, at least completely. Interesting. Maybe it is true. Don't know.

"choke hold" is true regardless of whether people are stuck in it or whether people are increasingly slipping out of it. The facts are that the Haredi leadership does apply choke holds to its community (which I am part of by the way). Banning women from education (higher teaching degrees even) to support their husbands in kollel is a bit tighter of a choke hold. Banning cellphones is a bit more of a chokehold. Banning computers, internet, etc. is a choke hold. There might be good intentions behind it, but it is still a choke hold. And it is still a choke hold even if some people break the hold.
.
Education is the way to go. If it succeeds in at least bettering people's knowledge of the threats and risks involved and helps them figure out how to use it safely, at least some good has come out of it. Those aspects should be strengthened and continued. The more educatiopn the better. Maybe they feel education is not doing enough and they still feel the need to ban it, and not just go the route of education. I do not know.

I feel comfortable saying it over in the name of Rav Elyashiv, because I heard it in the name of Rav Elyashiv. The Yated Ne'Eman, the mouthpiece for the Haredi public supposedly (I prefer Hamodia of the two, and prefer Mishpacha of the three) quoted it in the name of Rav Elyashiv. Again, did he initiate it? I do not know. Did he really say it? I do not know? He probably said something about it. If the Yated can say it, I can say it. But do I have to follow it just because the Yated said it in his name? I prefer to speak to my own Rav when I am unsure what to do and need Da'as Torah or just good advice from a Rav than to rely on quotes in the Yated.