I doubt the Agudah will ever hold an open Q&A again. The answers given by our Torah leaders were filled with double talk, evasiveness, and in some cases statements that were simply untrue (I’ll address those separately in a different post).
The most surprising moment came right at the beginning. Rabbi Uriel Deutsch, Rav of the Forest Park Shul in Lakewood, responded to the question by saying that the question isn’t really the question—and then proceeded to reframe it into something entirely different.
The actual question was:
“How are people supposed to reconcile the following: the very same leaders who speak strongly against gashmius—even in its minor forms—are seen attending extremely lavish events, perhaps because supporters pressure them to attend. Many feel this is a busha. How do we explain this contradiction?”
A fair question. Now listen to the convoluted answer.
Before anything, Rav Deutsch warns that no one should take his words out of context or extract soundbites. Fine. The video above contains the full exchange.
Then he says:
“Whenever we discuss gashmius, we always talk about someone else’s gashmius. It’s never about my own. It’s about why I feel pressured by someone else’s gashmius… The question is about how I should make decisions, not about what someone else does…”
Does anyone understand what this has to do with the question? How does this explain why Gedolim attend the very events they publicly condemn?
At 5:53 he adds:
“When we see our Rabbanim seemingly attending a simcha whose level of extravagance is inconsistent with the message… what does that have to do with me?”
“Seemingly”? It’s not “seemingly”—it happened. Everyone saw the videos. They went viral.
And what does he mean by “What does that have to do with me?” If our Torah leaders attend these events, doesn’t that send a message to our children that the leaders themselves don’t take their own warnings seriously?
But it didn’t end there. Rav Deutsch then claims that the question itself is “not really the question,” and reframes it into something entirely different—something that conveniently fits his answer.
Rav Yosef Elefant’s turn
Rav Elefant begins by saying the question is a “good one,” but then claims it was “kidnapped” by a micro‑question of whether a Rosh Yeshiva should attend weddings by x or y.
He then launches into a strong condemnation of luxury and gashmius—ironically making the original question even stronger.
He later calls the question of “who went to whose wedding” absurd and “not important,” while continuing to emphasize how destructive luxury is. The contradictions pile up.
Now he insults and belittles the one who asked the "good question" and tells him that the question is "absurd" and "not important"
Rav Shlomo Gottesman’s challenge
At 17:42 he asks:
“If a Rosh Yeshiva publicly refused to attend an over‑the‑top simcha because it contradicts the values he teaches—would that be beneficial? Would that be a Kiddush Hashem? And if yes, why isn’t it incumbent to do so?”
Rav Elefant responds:
“The action of a Rosh Yeshiva going to a one‑time event has no relevance and means nothing.”
Then he circles back to condemning luxury again, and repeats that the topic is being “kidnapped.”
Rav Hissinger adds:
At 19:40 he notes that the real issue is that Roshei Yeshiva attending these events puts the baalei simcha on a pedestal. Perhaps that is the core problem.
He then asks whether this relates to the idea of “Rebbe mechabeid ashirim.”
Rav Deutsch’s explanation
At 21:00 Rav Deutsch explains that if Hashem gave someone wealth, it must be because they have a zechus, and that even people with serious flaws can be conduits for supporting Torah. He cites sources to support this.
He then suggests:
“Imagine what those simchos would look like if the Roshei Yeshiva weren’t there.”
My conclusion
Why not simply say the truth? Why dodge the question? Why twist it into something else?
The honest answer is simple:
Roshei Yeshiva attend these events because of money. The Benjamins! כסף יענה את הכל.
No comments:
Post a Comment