Concert Ban Sounds Sour Note For Some,Elliot Resnick, <i>Jewish Press Staff Reporter</i>

Two weeks after 33 rabbis banned a concert that was to feature chassidic singers Lipa Schmeltzer and Shloime Gertner, confusion and rumor continue to percolate. Many question the ban's legitimacy and wonder what it may mean for the future of Jewish music.

In large bold letters, the ban declares in the name of "daas Torah" that attending or participating in the concert is "severely prohibited." The ban places Schmeltzer, Gertner, and the event's organizers in the category of those who cause the public to stray and pronounces their sin "greater than they can bear."

Some of the most prominent American rabbis - including Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetzky, Malkiel Kotler, Yisroel Belsky and leaders from such chassidic communities as Bobov, Belz and Satmar - signed the ban.

But the question of "why?" remains. According to the text of the ban, the concert - originally scheduled for March 9 at Madison Square Garden but now canceled - would have inspired "ribaldry and light-headedness." Similar events in the past caused "great stumbling, may the Merciful one save us," it says.

However, while the ban specifically targets the Gertner/Schmeltzer concert (which was to have separate seating and entrances for men and women), many wonder if its logic does not apply to other Jewish concerts as well.

"There were two types of rabbanim," said Boro Park rav Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum who has spoken to several of the ban's signatories. "Some were against concerts altogether and some were specifically against turning a concert into a moshav leitzim [session of scorners]. One performer [Lipa Schmeltzer, who doubles as a jokester], they felt, was making fun of rabbanim in a way that couldn't be tolerated."

On the Talkline With Zev Brenner radio program, Schmeltzer took a different view. Noting that the text of the ban closely mirrored that of an earlier Israeli ban of an Avraham Fried and Yaakov Shwekey Jerusalem concert in August 2007, Schmeltzer said it was only a matter of time before the ban came to America. His concert was targeted simply because of its prominence, he said.

"You try tomorrow to do a concertwith any singer - you can take the most heimishe, chassidishe singer - you advertise a concert in Madison Square Garden like that, I'm putting on the table $100,000 that all the rabbanim will come out against him."

Even those who understand the ban's reasoning question its necessity. "While my sympathies lie with the prohibition, I would have preferred to have been taught that it is assur [prohibited] rather than to have been handed an edict without explanation," said Rabbi Gil Student, who maintains a popular blog on Jewish thought, hirhurim.blogspot.com. His post on the ban generated over 200 comments.

Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani of Yeshiva University, said that bans "cause resentment and are difficult to enforce. Unless they're clearly explained the people who are supposed to follow the bansjust feel being pressured into doing something, which I think is not a very healthy educational method."

Rabbi Teitelbaum, on the other hand, does not oppose bans on principle. "If there's no other way to solve the problem, then you can ban something," he said. "But there are a lot of things we must do before banning things, such as solving the problem at beis din."

Both Schmeltzer and Sheya Mendlowitz, the event's producer, said that no one contacted them before the issuance of the ban. Indeed, Schmeltzer said that several of the signatories apologized to him.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost as a result of the ban, Mendlowitz said. Some of the money was to benefit Simchat Tziyon, a charity organization that sponsors the weddings of poor Israeli orphans.

In comments to the Long-Island based Jewish Star, Rabbi Kamenetzky acknowledged that the ban was a rush job of sorts. "Usually we [the signatories] meet together," he said. "This time, with time pressing, we did not get together. And maybe it was not the right thing."

Rabbi Kamenetsky apparently signed on the instigation of Brooklyn's Asher Friedman, who, together with Rabbi Avraham Schorr, were the driving force behind the ban. Some Internet commentators suggest that Rabbi Schorr and Frieidman misled some of the rabbis.

When contacted, Rabbi Schorr, who signed the ban as well, said his thinking is reflected in the ban's text. Numerous attempts to reach or elicit comment from several of the other signatories were unsuccessful.

While the future for other Jewish singers is still uncertain, Rabbi Kamenetzky said he doesn't "think [the ban] will refer to all concerts."

Rabbi Teitelbaum said, "I personally discussed [concerts] in years past with the gaon hador Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, Rav Pam, zt"l, and others. They all clearly stated that as long as they were done in a proper Jewish manner and will bring about a true kiddush shem shomayim they see nothing wrong with them."

In the meantime, Mendlowitz told The Jewish Press that he asks the public to "please be patient and stop the rabbanim bashing. There are rabbanim that are extremely concerned about the way this was handled and we will be addressing the issue very soon. We're working around the clock"

He said that ticket holders would receive refunds.

Read Comments (2)

Face The Music?
Date 12:03, 03-6, 08

In Elliot Resnick's article, he quotes Rabbi Teitelbaum who explains that there are two groups: those who oppose all concerts and those who want wholesome concerts. It is clear that rational frum people want wholesome concerts and, in general, family-oriented entertainment. The problem here is that the intransigence of the first group has been misconstrued as DAAS TORAH---notwithstanding several major problems with that extreme position. In my opinion, activists of the first school of thought were responsible for the rash decision to ban Lipa Schmelzcer's concert.

In particular, Rabbi Levin, who has a radio program, stated clearly that he together with other haredi activists are laboring to ban all concerts. (I am paraphrasing.)

Consequently, such individuals are presenting their unilateral side of the story to certain Talmiday Chachamim in Eretz Yisrael and in America to accomplish the aforementioned extreme objective. To justify his actions, Rabbi Levin cited the song entitled, ABEE MEH LEBT, which is one of Lipa's popular tunes.

Furthermore, he also cited YEEDIN KIMT TSEE GAYN, which is one of Mordechai Ben David's popular tunes. (The haredi clergyman made these statements last week on Zev Brenner's radio show and on his own radio show on The Talk Communications Network.) With all due respect to Rabbi Levin and his zealous companions, those two songs are totally innocuous.

Although I am not a music fan, I have heard those songs and I can attest that the words are completely clean. In fact, MBD's song is about the advent of the real Messiah which will prompt rejoicing in the streets of Jerusalem. (Such a theme is very religious according to anyone's standards.) With respect to Lipa's song, the words are harmless and, on occasion humorous. (The words mean: So We're Alive. In addition, there is reference to frustration about being in traffic and later stuck in Penn Station to mention a few items he sings about. What's the big deal?) Revealing his agenda, Rabbi Levin asserted that MBD's
song comes from an "unholy" source, specifically, Germany. He said it was originally a German tune about Genghis Khan. Now, that might be so; nonetheless, why would that make the song
objectionable? (Most people are unaware of the song's origins anyway; they just like the music.) What is ironic about Rabbi Levin's complaints on the subject relates to the fact that he himself has always listened to MBD's songs. He said so on his program; nonetheless, he has recently come to the realization that MBD's songs are not kosher. (Apparently, Rabbi Ephraim Luft, a guest on Rabbi Levin's program, convinced Rabbi Levin that MBD's songs are not good. According to Rabbi Levin, Rabbi Luft is an authority of music kashrus and has come to the United States to help ban orthodox Jewish concerts---I am paraphrasing.) Thus, according to such thinking, there is nothing
Lipa Schmelzcer could have done to salvage the situation.

Given the dubious nature of the stringency under discussion, it would behoove us to consider what the Shulchan Aruch has to say about making reckless allegations that harm an individual's livelihood and reputation. I hereby adduce several classical sources which forbid such behavior:

1) Choshen Mishpat 237

2) Choshen Mishpat 375---Hilchos Nezikin

3) Rashi On Kiddushin 59a, Maharit Peirush L'Harif where the Din prohibits interference with one's parnassa.

4) Sefer Mitzvos Negative Mandate 250

5) ibid. Negative Mandate 251

6) Rambam Mishnah Torah Mada Hilchos Deos Vl:8

Thus, in accordance with Torah Law, it is clear that such rash action is prohibited. At least, the defendant should been accorded due process---a Din Torah or at least contacted so that he could give his side of the story. In addition, signing Kol Korays on the basis of hearsay is also questionable:

A. Sanh. IV:6 Rosh who states that a Dayan must verify the facts; he is not allowed to rely on his colleague's assertions unconditionally. Thus, it is
highly questionable when individuals "sign off" without investigating.

In view of the above, we are faced with an attempted Gezayrah which is obviously untenable. Such proclamations do not have any validity in terms of normative Halacha as stated in Avoda Zara 36a re SHEMEN AKUM:

"Ayn gozrin gezayrah al hatseebor eh-lah im kayn roiv tseebor yeh-koh-lin lah-ah-mode
baw."

In addition, pursuant to our sacred literature (see Baytsah 30a), such untenable khumras
do more harm than good. According to the Talmud cited above, we are urged to invoke the principle: "Moo-tav sheh-yee-yoo shoi-geh-gin veh-al-yee-yoo meh-zee-din..."
With respect to the concerts in question, we certainly should eschew such khumras. If the kanoim wish to
implement a khumra, how about posting signs in our neighborhoods banning drunk driving on Purim. It would be nice of them to post such a petitions all over as a public service, instead of harassing Lipa and MBD. (By the way, it should be noted that many Ashkenazi melodies have Germanic and Slavic origins; it is also possible that some German and Slavic songs have Jewish origins; in addition, there are traditional Sephardic songs that have Arab origins; by the same token, there are Arab
songs that have Jewish origins.) Even if-- for the sake of argument--some of the popular singers'' melodies and lyrics are not the most spiritually sublime, how can we justifiably ban their concerts in light of the prohibitions mentioned above? Such
extremism should be shunned, since the songs we are talking about bring joy to people. There have been unaffiliated Yeedin who are inspired by such music and as a result attracted to their Jewish heritage and religion. Certainly, conscientious people should encourage musicians in our community to compose music
in accordance with our beliefs so we can praise the Lord with
greater conviction as Shlomo Hah-Melekh states in Mishlay 3:17:
Deh-rah-kheh-hah Dar-khay Noam, Veh-Khol Neh-see-voh-seh-ha shalom:Its ways are pleasant and all its paths peace.
May HASHEM grant us all ah fraylikhen Adar!
Chaim Silver

Incomplete understanding - what is "music", what is a "concert"
Date 11:03, 03-7, 08

Speaking as a classically trained, practicing composer it grieves me to encounter these "bans" when the decisions have no clear connection to "music" per say, but everything to do with "venue." It is this very specific but poorly understood differentiation that leads "da'as torah" (whatever that actually and specifically means) to make statements whose intent might be worthy (al pi halacha) but completely misguided, poorly defined, and therefore subject to ridicule.

The whole question of "what is Jewish music" is so complex as to make any discussion outside a purely musicological and scholarly one all but meaningless. It is a common failure of our culture that those who are not trained musicians or especially composers nevertheless make pronouncements about what is good or bad. In reality, these discussion inevitably are about what appeals to a person's individual taste, as opposed to a professional qualitative evaluation. We all "listen" to music, therefore we are "experts" at it, right? Wrong, and for reasons that ought to be obvious, but are not.

In music which involves sung text, there is another dimension that has nothing whatsoever to do with the music to which the sung text is set. And in the Jewish world in which its pop music emulates the rock-n'-roll culture which it has tried to adapt to purely Jewish sensibilities, there is a layer of cultural clash that overrides all specific musical considerations. This is an element that needs to be clearly distinguished from the purely musical ones. A text that is "offensive" (depending on who provides the definition) is an offensive text. A piece of music, which from a purely musical perspective can not by its very nature be offensive (again, professional termonology here and not anything else) can nevertheless contain offensive lyrics. One must, then, be explicit in the judgment that a given composition contains offensive lyrics - and one must, perforce, be prepared to demonstrate explicitly how such a text is offensive - not rely on vague generalities and broad-based but wholly unsupported accusations of fault.

After all, doesn't Bais Din require witnesses to a specific alleged act? Do we allow generalities to rule the day, or do we specifically require the testimony of valid witnesses and provable testimony?

The question of "venue" seems to me to be the more signficant issue in this rather lamentable spectacle, for this has nothing whatever to do with music (irrespective of its style or derivation). In such cases, it seems to me that rather than rely on hyperbole or circuitous references to conflicting halachic opinions, those who ban, or seek to ban concerts need to be clear, explicit and unambiguous in their determinations. Absent this clarity, the only result is a further deterioration of "rabbinic authority." You can only prohibit and prohibit and prohibit until all credibility is lost.

There is a famous fable that originated in ancient Greece, attributed to man named Aesop, variations of which are present in all cultures, including our own, that followed. In English, we know this as the story of "Chicken Little" - the barnyard hen who kept running around raising the alarm when something or other, otherwise not harmful, caused her alert the other animals to some impending doom. Ultimately, when the fox did enter the barnyard, none of the other animals would listen - it was just another in an unending series of false alarms. Only this time, the result was devastation and death.

Avrohom Leichtling
Monsey