There's an old paradox that discusses what happens when an irresistable force runs into an immovable object. The resolution comes from the recognition that in a universe that contains an irresistable force, there by definition cannot be immovable objects.
I've found this tool to be particularly helpful when looking at other apparent paradoxes, such as those found in Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's defense of the Lipa Schmelzer ban. (For purposes of full disclosure, I have never been to a Lipa Schmelzer concert, and as far as I know, I have never even heard a recording of his music.) He is attempting to square the problem of shameful behavior on the part of respectable people, even though both can't be true at the same time.
I should begin by noting that Rabbi Adlerstein is absolutely one of the good guys. But he is, presumably unwittingly, doing enormous damage to the causes that he clearly holds dear.
First of all, his derisive references to people troubled by the ban ("It is not as satisfying to many people, and lacks the cathartic release of a good zinger in the blogosphere", "(W)hat he did makes ironic sense to people who can bottle up their rage for a while", "Perhaps he actually meant what everyone is frothing at the mouth about:") are, I imagine, a reflection of his own discomfort in defending the indefensible. One need not be an inveterate "gedolim-basher" to question or oppose the banning process; Rabbi Adlerstein makes frequent reference to his own concerns, and it is unfair and unkind to ascribe inappropriate motivations to other with similar questions.
Let's get to the meat of things, then. The following quotes from Rabbi Adlerstein's essay struck me as being the most troublesome.
He has to discharge this both on a personal level, and to prevent anything that he does to be seen as slighting their honor – even if he disagrees.
Since when has respectful disagreement constituted a slight of honor? As far as I can tell, this baseless equation is merely an example of the growing myth of da'as torah, with its ubiquitous insincere denials of imputed infallibility. In the real, infinitely argued world of Torah, there is absolutely no equivalence between Rabbi Kaminetsky's refusal to sign a ban and signalling disrespect for leading rabbis.
This does not mean hypocrisy, but articulating in a manner that will send different messages simultaneously to different people.
I don't quite know where to begin with statement. Rabbi Adlerstein may not be advocating hypocrisy, but he is certainly calling for something far short of honesty. This cavalier dismissal of forthrightness is particularly jarring when one considers the compounded convolutions necessary to depict Lipa Schmelzer's performances as halachically inappropriate; there may be religious mandates proscribing public concerts or mandating respect for rabbis, but they pale in comparison to the Biblical obligation to stay far away from falsehood.
In all other decisions, were Rav Shmuel to do what so many of our commenters – published and unpublished – want him to do, which is courageously stand up and speak the truth, he would be set upon by legions of detractors as parting company with the gedolim of Eretz Yisrael. Please remember that there have been lots of people campaigning for literally decades to reject all the Kamenetskys, largely for being too liberal.
I simply cannot fathom the assumption that the "gedolim of Eretz Yisrael" are incapable of standing up on Rabbi Kaminetsky's behalf would he were to commit the unforgivable sin of speaking the truth. In fact, if, as Rabbi Adlerstein asserts, "the problem with gatekeepers with their own agenda is hundreds of years old," then there is really no excuse for the gedolim not being aware of, and responding to this problem. And herein lies the crux of problem - one cannot at the same time revere the gedolim and hold them other than responsible for proclamations issued in their names, especially if they have longstanding familiarity with the traditional zealotry of their gatekeepers. Rabbi Adlerstein's attempt to bifurcate the two is noble, but ineffective.
I should conclude by noting that I'm not personally theologically troubled by these developments. Good and great people make mistakes, and I feel no compulsion to pretend otherwise. I do, however, think that a society that is unwilling to respectfully protest bad examples of leadership will experience more such examples, and I think that unfortunate.
And, to conclude with a point I have often made, it is inconsistent to simultaneously revere the Torah and be so very willing to massage and manipulate it for the purposes of defending things that are so obviously wrong.
- Moishe Potemkin