Talk:Hershel Schachter

Controversies Section
I added a section on the recent imbroglio about RHS calling for assassination of the Israeli PM as well as repeating earlier controversies that have been very important in MO about women reading the kesubah at a wedding. I tried to have NPOV but would love to see people improve it! I think there should be something more substantive about the back and forth with Adler, Avi Weiss etc on women's prayer groups and the related denigration of Edah and later YCT by RHS. Please help me include this in the most unbiased way possible.Josh
 * I have rewritten it. If you can give me source relating to the "back and forth with Adler, Avi Weiss "  I can integrate into the section for you. Jon513 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Adler article is cited on the bottom of this page. Weiss is from his "Women at Prayer."  There are several detailed discussions of this issue on various blogs such as hirhurim.  The original article of Rabbi Schachter is his famous צאי לך בעקבי הצאן from the eponymous book.  In addition to this someone might want to note RHS's role in the recent conversion brouhaha as the lead arbiter for the RCA of all American conversions. Josh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to fix up the grammar in this section and make it sound less like the esteemed Rabbi's shiur and more like an article. I think it was an especially poor word choice to say that he came "under fire" for his recent remarks about the Israeli PM. In addition he was not criticized for his comments at Yeshivat haKotel; he made the comments at Kotel. Please help keep this NPOV and amicable so we can build a higher quality article that reflects both the importance of and the strong feelings engendered by this Rabbi.


 * Took out the blockquote and incoporated its gist into the text; I do not see why we need a hanging blockquote of Larry kaplan on RHS.

Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us worry about proportion and dangling after the article and section is finished. A lot more may be added by then. Dear 72.229.30.16 I dont know the books you cited on my talk page- you should add them.--Eat-more-radish (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree; this quote is not really anything that cannot be included within a short sentence. Why do we need PROFESSOR Lawrence Kaplans long exposition on the central philosophical position of women's learning in the Rav's weltanschaung?  Its not really a great piece of writing, nor is it informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cut down the cardinals section and eliminated quote. Your additions to this page are very reflective of TorahWeb, which is great but we need to incorporate some citations of this man's many ספרים as well.  In addition I think he was not the most vehemently opposed to the cardinal's visit though he did quietly walk out of the Beis Medrash.  He did not, for instance, write a letter to the Commentator as some RY's felt was necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies Section Unbalanced
i started this section but now I think this article is getting bogged down w/every stupid statement RHS ever made that offended someone. The Jlem statment was reported in many news sources and notable, as was the monkey comment. The others just serve as a gathering of insinuations and character assassinations. Yes; he says a lot of dumb stuff. Is this really relevant though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

took out all but the three main controversies reported in the press and those disgusting bullet points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think taking out the section on controversies really takes away from the article. Many of the off the cuff remarks give a fuller view of who he is and how he is perceived. Plus I haven't heard a shiur about kesuba in YU/Riets in which the rebbe didn't make a joke about a monkey reading the kesuba. Some of his comments have really had an impact at YU. especially at the purim shpeils —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.35.236 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with the Controversies and halacha sections
I think that some thought has to go into the difference between "Controversies" and "Halakhic opinions" sections. The is some overlap as he has made some controversial halakic pasasks.

Firstly, obviously not all of his halakhic opinions are going to make it into this article. The ones that are mentions are the ones that are unusual, controversial, or notable in some way. I disagree with Josh that these need to representative. I don't even know what that would mean (one for each sedar?!). There is little reason to mention a pasak that does not have interest for most people reading the article. A controversial halakhic opinion is not a "controversy". Any criticisms of his pasak should go in "halakhic opinions". Currently "women's issues" and christains and art are in both sections. They should be move entirely to the "halacha" section.

The controversies section introduces itself to be about "infelicitous but extemporaneous statements" (btw why use "infelicitous" - I had to look it up! - what's wrong with politically incorrect?) and yet only mentions a few, and then a bunch of "person X disagree with R' Schcachter". This section should be only for his "off the cuff remarks."

Also the section need to be in paragraph form. It may be easier to write in bullet, but it is not easier to read. (also it is unencyclopedic - would brittanna have bullet!?) Jon513 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Halachic Opinions Section
I think that these two opinions are not representative of this broad thinker's vast and unremitting output of Halakhic and political opinions on issues like territorial concessions, brain death, kashrut of all dairy products and urban eruvin. I really would like to see this section either broadened into a representative survey of the literature not just from the interwebs but also from בעקבי הצאן and elsewhere or totally gone. josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hashkafah, Tanach
No mention has been made in this article of Rabbi Schachter's Tanach based haskafah. I think that this deserves some fleshing out from shiurim and primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons
While a controversies section is appropriate for this article, please keep WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in mind as to prevent the article from being overly weighted to the negative, despite the presence of sources. Also, everyone should please remember that edit warring may lead to measures being taken to protect the project. Thank you all. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 Jewish Week article on Rabbi Schachter referred to a series of prior press controversies from 2003-2006. The goal was to add them. This is how the Rabbi shows up in a newspaper search. I have no intention of adding any more controversies. The section is large enough. Since, the Rabbi had a controversy this week that section was written first. In fact I worked on the opinion section also so that it would not be unbalanced. Every line had a source. The edit war is not over WP:NPOV but over the WP:NOR that another editor is engaged in by presenting non-sourced materials and taking out the sourced. Thank you for looking into the article. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1] I agree with you that he should not sound like a crazy but since this got started this week through a controversy let's handle it. Lets take the 2003-4 controversies and produce another 2-3 lines that are respectful- because if I found them quickly than so can others. I do not think that they should be taken out entirely. Also the Prof. Kaplan article is on the web and will certainly return to the entry by another editor. Dont take it out, please find a proportional way to include it. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 2] May I recommend starting a new section on the article's talk page with your suggested changes, asking for comments from the regular editors, and working out an acceptable solution? I think hammering out revisions on the talk page will defuse a lot of the tension that arises with revert wars. If you do put some suggested text on the talk page, drop me a line, as I would be interested in it too. Thanks~ -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote message 1] on Avi's talk page and he responded with 2] on mine. For those of us who got involved in wikipedia through rubber necking a controversy, I think we need to include the controversies of 2003-4 because they show up in newspaper search. can we produce another 2-3 lines that will include the earlier ones? Also the Lawrence Kaplan article is online and will be added, in time by others. Can someone find a proportional way to add both that does not violate WP:BLP? I am not sure that I can meet the wiki editor standards of BLP but if I found those reliable sources in a few minutes of web search then so can others. Let us take care of this now to head off future debates over include or exclude. Let us include them now, but within guidelines.--Eat-more-radish (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"has been criticized for a series of infelicitous but extemporaneous statements"

This seems both passive voice and a POV. I changed it to the more objective and requiring sources "newspapers have cited him for rebuke" but it was reversed. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

has been criticized for a series of infelicitous but extemporaneous statements
 * Except they were all infelicitous, and thats why we are discussing them, inasmuch as they got some folks very angry and that was reported in the press. And they were all off-the-cuff.

So there you have it.--Chakira (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. I'm not really sure why a third opinion is needed here; I don't see any recent discussions between two users. What is the problem here? If anon IPs keep interjecting the same text, you may want to have the page protected. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if Im something of a neophyte, but can I protect the section that keeps getting attacked?--Chakira (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sections can't be protected, but whole pages can. See WP:RPP. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I think semi protection will keep us from having an edit war here.  I strongly suspect sock puppetry in reverting this page to note Schachter's ebullient and highly allusive, allegorical and never-meant-to-be-taken-literally style of hyperbolic symbolism.--Chakira (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you need more help, let me know. Also remember that sock puppetry doesn't usually count for anon IPs, only registered users. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case it seems as if the vandalism/edit warring has died down. Thanks. --Chakira (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks as if, after a short hiatus, the vandals have returned. If this continues can we reprotect the page?--Chakira (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any indication from their IP addresses whether they are parrots or monkeys? Yudel (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even an anonymous IP address can read the kesubah!--Chakira (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Per WP:BLP text such as "lambasted" etc. is inappropriate unless this is sourced reliably. Furthermore, even if it can, biographies of living people must be written extremely carefully with respect to how they are portrayed. I am certain that the controversies can be discussed without excoriation and vitriol. Please work out proper text here before restoring inappropriate material. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on lambasted, maybe criticized or received attention for would work better? I like the first line though because it is NPOV and I think a good formulation.  Please do not restore the obviously non NPOV version put up by anonymous talmidim and RHS defenders.  Its really, really bad. --Chakira (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to improve the article; please remove the BLP tag, this is sort of a transparent move to cast aspersions on information that is reliably sourced in MSM and other places. So the BLP tag is bullshit, even if the language needs to get toned down a bit to reflect NPOV.  Be well.--Chakira (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I have never attended YU nor been in R' Schachter's shiur, I have to ask you, do you know what the term ma'ase kof (act of a monkey) means as opposed to a ma'ase adam (act of a person)? For example, shechita requires ma'ase adam so it needs human intervention. L'afukei (as opposed to) boomeranging the chalef (knife). It appears to my investigation that the "monkey" issue is the result of someone ignorant of millenia of halachic literature and nomenclature picking up on a talmudic term and both misunderstanding and then misrepresenting it. That would appear to be a WP:UNDUE violation if not a WP:COATRACK, and I can see no reason for them to be in the article. Can you?


 * Regardless, BLP is a POLICY issue, not a CONTENT issue, and the controversial material must be removed during the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, bringing the kesuba issues directly from a Schachter Shiur under controversial statements is a WP:OR violation. -- Avi (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if quoting from the Jewish Week article, it is improper, firstly as the main focus of the JW article is the "Rosh Memshala" quote, and secondly, as any serious research into the sugyos would show that any comparison is the result of the ignorance of talmudic and halachic prose and style, not something about Schachter. The Rosh Memshala stuff, on the other hand, seems both notable and appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am re-writing the section now. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ::I dont remember if I sourced that, if I did it should have been sourced better. I am not trying to commit libel here but it is underhanded and dirty to gloss over what this man is known for in Jewish media outlets; not only his stunning erudition but also his ridiculous "allegorical" statements.  I think personally that monkeygate WAS a refrence to Maaseh Kof, but it still got a lot of people very angry and was widely reported.  You can put both sides in there--"Perhaps alluding to the category of MK, S drew opprobrium by saying that not only a woman, but even a monkey, could read the K"-- you get the idea and you can play with the words as you like.  This is not MY mis/correct understanding but a widespread controversy in the Jewish community and far from a violation of the WP that you are hiding behind.  I did not accuse you, finally, of being an RHS acolyte, but rather of reverting to a version of the page written by such acolytes.  Be well. --Chakira (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he deserves as much protection as we have given to Rashid Khalidi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As I said, I'm re-writing the section in what I believe is a more neutral manner, and I hope you weigh in with your opinions as to whether or not I succeeded when I am done. -- Avi (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note re: the chadashot reference in Hebrew, it itself is fully referencing the Jewish Week, and is not really an independent source. -- Avi (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not mad you're rewriting, I was mad that you reverted to this propaganda version that caused admins to protect this page for a few weeks. --Chakira (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, and please respect the inuse tag. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Needs to be more than an allusion to the monkey comment.--Chakira (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Jewish Week article on monkeys which is no longer online was from July 29 2004.--Chakira (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask why you feel there needs to be more than an allusion when it was a one-half-sentence throwaway in the Jewish Week article? Can you find the earlier article so we can read it and see? I did not see it on Google. -- Avi (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also re-written the Halacha section as prose (thanks for the corrections/improvements, Chakira). What are the thoughts abouut the article now? -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the changing of the Halakha section into prose. There needs to be something on the monkeygate.  Will make some more minor edits now to make it read better.--Chakira (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the justification for directly referencing a one-half-sentence throwaway in the Jewish Week article? -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened to the Eruvin talk on the Halakha section? That was sourced.--Chakira (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that the eruvin existed was referenced. There was no reliable source discussing any controversy about R' Schachter's supporting one and not the other. It was a classic case of original synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look on www.msjcwh.org under the eruv faqs. --Chakira (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, willdo. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-)All it says of import is: There is absolutely no mention of any controversy or inconsistency as to R' Schachter's position, so the text that was there was original synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this entire controversy (since removed) except on this page, but reading the quote here, it strikes me as a simple halachic statement. Use of a "monkey" is a basic halachic concept saying that a task may be automated. I see nothing that anyone with knowledge of Halacha should be offended by, except for the hyper-sensitive. If we held any Rosh Yeshiva to that standard, he (pronoun intentional) could not give a class.Mzk1 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced Tag
Removed because of recent major edits by Avi. --Chakira (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He does not allow women rabbis in any circumstance
Someone keeps writing that he allows women to be rabbis in extenuating circumstances (footnote 8). This is not what the source cited indicates. He says that one opinion in tosafot theorized that women can receive a limited form of semikha ordination on an ad hoc basis, but Schachter himself states that we reject that theory in practice in ALL circumstances. I'm not sure why someone keeps trying to write otherwise, I've edited this out a few times already. Whoever is making this change please identify yourself so this can be debated openly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.47.200 (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misquote
Someone added back some of the controversy (sp?). I believe he misquoted, both times.Mzk1 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, since there appears to be an edit war (in which I am uninvolved) going on, I will just state that the Jewish Week is questionable as a reliable source.Mzk1 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for compromise on honorifics
There seems to be a bit of a war over Schachter vs. Rav Shachter. Since the Talmud does consider it an insult to cll someone by his last name (as per Ben-Yishai in Samuel), perhpas a good compromise would be to use "Herschel Schachter". Would this violate policy?Mzk1 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hershel Schachter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501032832/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/15/3122161/yeshiva-u-dean-warns-reporting-sex-abuses-can-kill to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/15/3122161/yeshiva-u-dean-warns-reporting-sex-abuses-can-kill

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"offensive Yiddish racial slur"
Regarding this edit, the word "shvartse" means "black" in Yiddish. That's it. When English speakers use it, it's mostly (always?) used in a derogatory way, but I'm not aware of any other way to say it in Yiddish. See also the definition in this article in Jewish Currents ("considered insulting although it literally means 'black'") or this article on the Orthodox Union website ("not inherently offensive; it just means 'black.'"). Neither of those articles condone or approve of its use, by the way. In any event, The Forward does not refer to it as an "offensive Yiddish racial slur"; it doesn't characterize the word at all. Meanwhile, our article has a direct quote from the YU spokesman describing it as a "derogatory racial term". Why must we inaccurately gild the lily here and violate WP:IMPARTIAL, when we already have a direct quote from the YU describing the term and condemning Schachter for its use? Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. The Forward characterizes the remarks as being 'racially loaded'. The Yiddish term for black is שווארץ (shvartz, or Schwartz, as in the Jewish surname which also means Black, as in Mr. Black. (The name Blau translates as Mr. Blue, and there are a few other examples). You correctly point out that while the word itself is innocuous enough, in today's context it is considered insulting, much the same way the word Cushi is&mdash;it boils down to real-world usage and perception, much the same way the n-word and even Black have developed negative connotations or fallen out of favor over time. Here is the perspective of a Black Jew on the subject. Upon closer inspection, the quote isn't even so accurate. I propose to change the following sentences thus:

"Schachter cited concerns that if the child's story was a fabrication, it could result in a Jew's being locked "in a cell with a shvartze, in a cell with a Muslim, a black Muslim who wants to kill all the Jews." Yeshiva University condemned the use of the term shvartze ( a racially loaded Yiddish word that means black the Yiddish word for black, racially loaded when directed at a person): “The recent use of a derogatory racial term and negative characterizations of African-Americans and Muslims, by a member of the faculty, are inappropriate, offensive, and do not represent the values and mission of Yeshiva University,” a YU spokesman stated."
 * StonyBrook (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement, but I'm not sure it's accurate. It's "racially loaded" when an English speaker uses it to refer to an individual. It's not racially loaded when a Yiddish speaker uses it to describe the color of the suit he is wearing. Jayjg (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless he is being offered a variety of suit colors by the salesman in a big box store and says "I hate blacks," which might not go over so well. Now imagine he says "Watch out for those Blacks," which in effect is what Schechter said. It's obviously offensive because of the context, regardless of what the dictionary definition of the word is. Which doesn't even matter because there's hardly a scenario where it could be used to describe people, as you said above When English speakers use it, it's mostly (always?) used in a derogatory way. StonyBrook (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, and I don't think you're really disagreeing with me, but the wording you have proposed indicates that the word itself is "racially loaded". I'm pointing out that it's "racially loaded" only in the context of an English speaker using it to describe an individual. So, if someone asks "who did this" and the answer is "the shvartse", then it's "racially loaded". On the other hand, if someone speaking Yinglish asks "which suit will you wear, the bloi or the shvartse?", and is answered "the shvartse", then it's not "racially loaded". So, the proposed wording is still misleading. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck the proposed version and inserted a different one to allay your concerns for accuracy. I recommend letting ourselves be guided by the sources to avoid OR. StonyBrook (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your new proposed wording looks fine to me. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)