Mishmar

No Shortcuts in Spirituality

2008-06-22T18:07:00.003-04:00

From an article in this week's Yated on the role of segulos in Judaism:

...In the past, we’ve mentioned the recitation of the parsha of the monn, which is clearly explained as effective only insofar as it strengthens our emunah, our faith, that it is G-d - and only G-d - Who provides for our sustenance. It is the same, explains the Mishnah Berurah (1:13), for the ‘segulah’ of reciting Ashrei, korbanos, the Akeidah, and more. The power and the segulah are in the way reciting these things will change our lives and bring us closer to Hashem - nothing more, and nothing less...

A ‘segulah’ which does none of these, but rather seems more like magic - independent of any religious growth - is far from a harmless ‘experiment.’ It brings us dangerously close to blurring the lines between believing solely in Hashem and in the power of our service to Him, and believing in copper snakes and in the power of Moshe Rabbeinu’s uplifted arms...

We are never alone or hopeless, so long as we can turn to Hashem. Doing the will of Hashem is the one and only real ‘segulah.’ All other segulos are a part of this greater segulah. This segulah may not always be easy, but it is equally available to every single one of us...

Towards a Torah Open-Mindedness

2008-05-26T17:33:00.006-04:00

To what extent can a person identify as "Open-Minded" and as a Torah Jew at the same time? Assuming that there is an appropriate Open-Mindedness, is that defined by an intellectual tolerance and openness up to specific points, or does the entire concept of "Open-Mindedness" need to be redefined?

An excerpt from a thoughtful post by Dr. William Kolbrener:

...To be open-minded in this sense means to be open to the energies which will transform me into the person I want to become. Without incorporating those energies, I will remain in silent battle with those part of myself I can't face, instead of using those energies as a means of personal transformation. This not only means acknowledging things about which I'd rather forget (or repress) about myself; it also may mean acknowledging a past from which I had hoped to distance myself, the stranger within.

My own thoughts are that there are two aspects to any appropriate “Torah Open-Mindedness”:

First, “intellectual empathy”, the ability to appropriately identify with another’s mindset. In conversation, this would mean when appropriate, listening to a person without agreeing with their point of view, but entering their mindset to make them feel genuinely understood, which could be included in some cases under nosei b’ol im chaveiro.

Second, there is honestly recognizing and accepting one’s own humanity, rather than disowning it. R. Yerucham Levovitz(Daas Torah, V’zos Haberacha)writes that the Chovos HaLevavos himself, may have gone through the challenges mentioned in Shaar Yichud Hama’aseh(including, I assume, the intellectual ones listed there), and successfully overcome them.

There are sources which go further and say that it is specifically the challenges or the “skeletons in the closet” which are the cause of growth in avodas Hashem (eg, the letter from R. Hutner where he says about gedolim, “but who knows about their struggles, their failures, their falls and their regressions”).

As far the application to “Torah Open-Mindedness” is concerned, if one realizes that one suffers, or had suffered, from the same or from a similar malady, it could lead to a greater understanding of another's mindset.

Growing Pains

2008-03-18T23:17:00.004-04:00

From a post by Rabbi Lazer Brody:

Linda, you ask the question, "Why have I changed? Who has changed me?" Here's a bombshell for your parents and teachers: Hashem is changing you. Hashem is using your bad decisions for your own good, because He loves you so much. He doesn't want you to be a shallow Jewish girl that discusses wigs and clothes styles all day long. Since you haven't developed a personal relationship with Hashem up until now, He wants you to do so by starting from scratch.

Along these lines, the Ramban indeed says that the purpose of a nisayon, a spiritual test, is to bring out the best in the person that passes it. Teshuva can also make bad decisions into something positive.

Of course, there can be nisyonos, teshuvah, and nekudas habechirah on different levels, no matter how frum one is. Indeed any growth needs reflection and challenge, rather than shallowness, as explained here.

No Perfection

2008-02-05T22:01:00.000-05:00

I am a rather lukewarm football fan, and was travelling in Manhattan, late Sunday night, during what must have been the final moments of the Super Bowl, or shortly thereafter. What alerted me that the Giants had won was when I heard jubilant cries when the subway pulled into three stations. Apparently, these New Yorker's disagree with the view advanced (see here) that "football is simply a bunch of men pummeling each other", as also was apparent with the parade which took place today in lower Manhattan.

What does interest me about Sunday's event was the concept of perfection. I am wondering if going into an important competition with a perfect record puts pressure on a team, and caused them not to win. Pressure can be an incentive, but perhaps this was a case of too much of it.

Today was also another "super day", namely Super Tuesday. While not as exciting as Super Sunday, it is much more significant in terms of current events, and I managed to vote this morning when the polls were relatively empty.

Pictures: A Time for Music XXI

2008-01-16T21:09:00.000-05:00

Pictures from Sunday night's HASC Concert are available here (the slide show view can be accessed by clicking the middle button on the lower right).

HASC XXI Concert

2008-01-14T22:41:00.000-05:00

Sometimes when you're feeling all alone, you need some happiness to call your own. Nothing is going the way it should, you're trying to do the best you could.

Lift up your eyes to the sky, your life's in His hand. Trust in Him - He will reply, guiding all your steps. Always at your side, you are His joy and pride.

And don't you know you're never alone, it doesn't matter where you are. There's nothing in His eyes more special than you, wherever you go Hashem goes with you.

The above, sung by Avroham Fried, was the accompanying music to the HASC video at last night's concert at Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall(to sample, see Holyland's Greatest Hits, song # 1).

For me, the evening's highlight was the "Four Tenors" , who sang Mona Rosenblum's stirring "Moriah"(click on # 2 to sample) and "Shiyiboneh Beis Hamikdash"(see below). The four were Dudu Fisher, Ohad, Avroham Fried and Chazzan Yitzchok Meir Helfgot.

Incidentally, Chazan Benzion Miller had previously sung "Shyiboneh" at a Time for Music # 17(click on # 9 to sample), where the entire theme was Jerusalem. On the redemption theme last night, in addition to "Moriah" and "Shyiboneh", Avroham Fried began with his classic "No Jew Will Be Left Behind"(here), and also offered his powerful "Harachaman"("Nu Nu Nu"), in addition to other selections from his latest album (click on # 11 to sample).

Surprises this year included Wally Eastwood's comedic juggling(he juggles balls onto a keyboard to play songs), Dudu Fisher's parody of a Chazzon's audition, a comedic clip of Country Yossie interviews, and a guest appearance by Ohad.

Finally, I enjoyed Etan Katz's heartfelt "Lmaancha"(the title track from here), as well as his brother Shlomo's "Shabbos Kodesh"("Yismechu") and "Niggun Nevo"(#'s 5 and 6, here), the latter sung during the concert as well as during the finale.

See here for pictures.

Berdichever Philosophy

2007-12-30T15:35:00.000-05:00

From an article in Mishpacha Magazine by Rabbi Horowitz:

I do not profess to understand Hashem’s workings, but perhaps when the Jewish people are one day in need of forgiveness, the 2 of you and all others who unconditionally love and believe in their at-risk sons and daughters will become Klal Yisroel’s Reb Levi Yitzchok Bardichiver and advocate for all of Hashem’s children.

This is a beautiful thought. The Jewish people need zechusim(merits), and the above scenario may very well play a role in hashgacha(Divine providence).

I also remember reading a story regarding a Chasidic rabbi(I forget which) whose followers wanted him to drive away his wayward child. The rebbe refused to do so, and responded that his actions prevented heavenly accusations against his own followers, who deserved to be "driven away" as well, according to strict heavenly justice.

Similarly, Rachel's seeing to it that Leah would not be embarrassed and her allowing a competitor to remain in the same home, enabled her to be an advocate for the Jewish people many years down the line, when during the reign of Menashe, there was the sin of idolatry, specifically, bringing an image into the Beis Hamikdash(Rashi to Yirmeyah 31:14, mentioned in above article).

Of course, there is a time when it is best for all concerned for a child to move out of the house, but when the issue is simply one of "what will the neighbors say", then the above thought would be appropriate.

Plausibility Arguments

2007-12-19T21:09:00.000-05:00

From an article by Professor Aviezer in the latest Jewish Action:

"I shall challenge the above views and demonstrate that there are, in fact, striking similarities between knowledge in the realm of science and knowledge in the realm of religion. These similarities will be shown to form the basis for rational arguments supporting the Divinity of the Torah. A rational approach to belief in the Torah and the existence of God has been the subject of several recent books However, this analysis is quite different from those found in other accounts....

"The scientific discoveries listed above—and many others—correspond to the words of the Torah. The many areas of harmony between science and Torah constitute important plausibility arguments for religious belief. In the twenty-first century, the person of faith need not feel apologetic about his or her beliefs.

It should be emphasized, however, that the comprehensive agreement between science and Torah described above does not prove that the Torah is of Divine origin, and it certainly does not prove that God exists. Plausibility arguments are not a substitute for faith.

Faith (emunah) is the thread that weaves together our religious beliefs and our practices."

Note:
As with any post of this sort, my purpose is to bring to attention an article which I find of interest, and which others may as well. My intent is definitely not to create a hangout for skeptics--frum or otherwise-- who wish to attack ikkarie emunah(key principles of Jewish faith). There are other places for the latter, and in any event, my time is limited as far as editing and monitoring is concerned. For now, I am leaving moderation off, but if you wish to comment, please bear in mind that this is a frum blog.

Kosher Cheeseburgers?

2007-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:00

Although I do not have any particular urge to eat non-kosher cheeseburgers(although as in Rashi Vayikra 20:26, that is not the reason why to refrain from eating non-kosher food), I found this news blurb on Yeshiva World interesting.

This is the part of Talila's menu which discusses the item:

"Talia’s To Go offers something that customers observing a diary-free diet, due to religious or health reasons, are going to love - Kosher Parve Cheeseburger. Add a slice of American or Mozzarella flavored Tofu Cheese to your burger, sandwich, or wrap. Longing for a smear of dairy free cream cheese? We got it! All cheeses are made from Tofu. They are parve, 100% vegan, cholesterol and fat free. Best of all – they taste like the real thing!"

Is this simply a negative aspect of consumerism which drives up demand for additional exotic kosher products? Or can anyone find a positive aspect to availability of this food product(eg, helping someone non-frum abstain from actual cheeseburgers)? What is actually the difference between this and any imitation milk product ?

Relevant mareh mekomos could be the oft-quoted Ramban in Kedoshim, as well as the gemara in Chullin quoting Yalta(109b). There was a recent article in Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society( I believe by Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky) which discussed just this question.

On a related note, here is a link to an article which discusses surimi(scroll down to "Kosher Lobster?!" in the CRC article) by Rabbi Zushe Blech, who parenthetically, I heard this past Motzoie Shabbos on the Zev Brenner show.

I suppose that the topic of food caught my interest just after the taanis, and I will conclude by stating the obvious, that this post is for discussion purposes only.

women rabbis, tefila groups and the conflict betweem moral sensibility and halacha

2007-12-17T11:35:00.000-05:00

Reading much of the blogging done last week about women rabbis brought to my mind a fascinating din in hilchos tumas tzara’as. Tzara’as must be declared impure by a kohein. A strange situation can occur where a talmid chacham sees a nega and knows exactly what the halacha is, but must go to a kohein, who might be an am ha’aretz, in order to have the proper declaration made (see Rashi VaYikra 14:35). While various achronim find this din perplexing (see the Parashas Derachim’s discussion), it would seem that some modern minds don’t quite grasp that there is a kashe to ask. Thus, it troubles them not that a women who might have spent years studying hilchos niddah (just as an example) and be fully proficient in its intricacies is expected to ask her shaylos to her local Rabbi who may be less knowledgeable than herself. It troubles them not that a highly trained professional is not entitled to dispense advice of a binding final-word nature, but must defer to someone else simply because she is of the wrong gender.

What is especially fascinating is the attitude of the MO camp (for lack of a better label) on this issue. Imagine a student who spends years in medical school studying, who passes his exams with flying colors, who shows all the capability of being a promising doctor and doing great good. What would we expect the reaction of such a person to be if when it came time for the residency program to begin and for all that study to be put into practice they were told that they cannot continue further and are barred from the practice of medicine; they were told to continue studying and doing research, but to expect no papers to be published, expect to not be taken seriously by peers in the field, expect to be accused of pursuing medicine for false motives and under questionable pretenses rather than for the goal of doing good? This is exactly the situation that has been created by those who will not question the heter of R' Soloveitchik to teach women gemara, as kvar horah zakein, but fail to provide any opportunity for women to use that learning for practical good or appreciate why they should want to do so.

The questions of women’s tefilah groups, rabbis, and what-not are matters of halacha and need poskim with insight and sensitivity to guide us to answers, answers which must be more than an exercise in seeking a "Rabbinic way"to arrive at some predetermined conclusion. I am not in this post tackling the halachic parameters of these issues. I am, though, questioning the attitude of those who dismiss these questions as trivial, question the motives of those who raise them, or who offer pat answers that read value statements into what may be the realm of gezeiras hakasuv. I doubt anyone would say that halacha takes a lesser view of talmud Torah or talmidei chachamim simply because the psak of nega must be made by a kohein and not a talmid chacham. Why then have some come to the conclusion that because women cannot be Rabbis it means the Torah rejects equality as a value?

What amazes me is hearing the argument by those who otherwise identity with MO that since certain feminist concerns originate in secular society and not Torah, they are automatically to be rejected. Doesn’t the whole concept of Torah u’Mada according to any of its definitions direct us to incorporate the positive values of the external world into our framework of Torah life? And what values are we speaking of? Feminism as a sociological and philosophical movement is multi-faceted, and to dismiss all its appects in one broad stroke is simply wrong. We certainly accept the value of kavod ha’adam and kavod habriyos as validating the worth of all people- these are not external values, but at the core of Torah itself. Is a woman’s quest for spirituality any less significant because of her gender?

Halachic answers must be followed whether or not they are in concert with our modern sensibilities of equality. But that being said, where answers do not conform to what we see as fair and just, it does not mean we must dismiss our questions, our groping for better answers, our discomfort at what we perceive to be a conflict. Halacha is perhaps unique in that religious rapture must be channeled through a precisely defined system, which may dampen those very feelings of religious exuberance which sustain commitment. Accepting the halachic answer does not make that challenge any less real or meaningful.

There is a pervasive sense that moral discomfort in the face of G-d’s command is itself a pgam in one’s religiosity. There is a smug, dismissive attitude toward those who raise these issues, a sense that their questions are indicative of a lesser commitment to avodas Hashem, their yiras shamayim is deficient, as sense that their motives must be tainted and impure. (Undoubtedly this post will be read by some in the same way). I cannot see how such an attitude can be reconciled with statements like these made by R’ Ahron Lichtenstein:

When there is a conflict between the tzav and the moral order, what do we do about it?...The message of the akeida is clear: God’s command takes precedence, in every respect, over our moral sensibility and our conscientious objections… On the other hand, as those who do seek to ingrain moral sensitivity in ourselves and in our children, we need not dismiss the ambivalences, the difficulties and contradictions (at the initial level, surely)....We need not dismiss the wrestling and grappling as being a reflection of poor yirat Shamayim, of spiritual shallowness, or of a lack of frumkeit. Inasmuch as goodness itself is an inherent component of frumkeit, the goodness which is at the root of the problems, struggles and tensions is itself part of yirat Shamayim—and a legitimate part. If the sense of moral goodness is legitimate, then the questing and the grappling are also legitimate.

Some have used the fact that women’s tefila groups lack the distinctive kedusha of a minyan as a reason to call for them to be disbanded. Strange that if a group calls itself an "Amein group" it can meet every morning for Shachris and is touted as a great thing, but call it a tefila group and it suddenly is wrong. But to address the point more directly, is not satisfying the needs of women not itself a worthy value? A gemara comes to mind: lo mipnei she'smicha b'nashim elah la'asos nachas ruach l'nashim. The act of smicha on a korban as no spiritual value whatsoever if done by women, but Chazal permitted it because it gave 'nachas ruach' (Chagiga 16b). Again, I am not suggesting a halachic conclusion, but simply noting that the issue needs study and we should not be quick to make value judgments.

The only agenda that religion should serve is avodas Hashem - not -isms of any sort. To a certain degree the Orthodox feminist movement has shot itself in the foot by allowing itself to be identified with a broad constituency that we would only be kidding ourselves to think has lishma and avodah at heart. But, there are those who do. Last week we read a lot about the response to those that don’t. Where is the response to the others? What opportunities can we extend to these women to inspire our communities? What role do we expect them to take, what role do we allow them to take? How can we show that we value and esteem their religious efforts? Telling people what can’t be done should be accompanied by some thoughtful answers to questions like these. But first you need to respect these concerns as real and legitimate, and I don't know if we have come that far yet.

Jewish Heroism

2007-12-09T22:34:00.000-05:00

There is an article by Rabbi Naphtali Hoff in this week's Jewish Press on the topic of heroism and Chanukah. There is a quote from Ariel Sharon regarding heroism and the Holocaust:

The heroism of the Jewish mother hugging her children close in their final hour, the heroism of the father who risked his life to find a lone piece of bread for his son, the heroism of those who helped their fellows in conditions of hard labor and freezing temperatures, the heroism of those who comforted a dying friend, the heroism of those who conquered despair in the death camps, the heroism of those who preserved Jewish tradition and held a Passover Seder while hiding in the ruins of the ghetto..

Rabbi Hoff concludes:

While we certainly acknowledge the Maccabees’ strength, courage and fortitude, it would be disgraceful to reduce their legacy to the fleeting glory of physical prowess and military might. Had Chanukah been about that alone, it would have soon faded far into our distant past, together with many other military successes in Jewish history.

What has secured Chanukah’s eternal place among our people is its emphasis on the Jews’ indomitable spirit.

May we see miracles "today, just as in those days". Happy Chanukah to all !

Learning from Lobsters

2007-12-03T21:06:00.000-05:00

I remember reading the lobster mashal in one of Rabbi Twerski's writings, and today came across it online.

The point to note is that the stimulus that enables the lobster to grow is discomfort. If not for the discomfort, the lobster would never expand its shell!... If criticism makes one feel uncomfortable (as it generally does), rather than feeling resentful, one should seize the opportunity to utilize it as a stimulus for growth.

Easier said than done, but definitely true!

Slifkin in the Jewish Press III

2007-11-29T18:54:00.000-05:00

For those who haven't tired of the issue, the Slifkin debate is again in the Jewish Press. What follows are mostly some general thoughts, beyond the topic of dinosaurs and evolution.For better or for worse, I have little interest in dinosaurs, the age of the universe, or in evolution. I understand of course, that there are others who are interested in these topics. My interest has rather been in the Science/Chazal issues, and I have always appreciated those who treat those topic separately from the former issues. To me, nuance and clarity of thought should be the name of the game, and separate topics deserve separate treatments, no matter what positions one takes.

I have quoted, positively, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Weinreb's forward to Challenge of Creation(and linked to a Jerusalem Post article discussing the issue), but noted clearly that that I was referring to the general points of intellectual inquiry, which have an application beyond the particular book. Similarly, one of the main reasons I attended the Challenge of Creation book launch was to hear Rabbi Weinreb, whose thoughts I enjoy hearing on many issues. Indeed, at the book launch, he mentioned the importance of the ability to think and to express a question, and that this could lead to strengthening, not weakening of emunah(based on my general recall of the speech).

I am still interested, though, in some aspects of the Jewish Press article linked above. For example, how does Rabbi Slifkin understand the following Moreh Nevuchim?

When we make Kiddush on Shabbos we recite the words of the fourth commandment stating that God rested (vayonach) on the seventh day. Chazal say that this means that creation came to halt on that day. The Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, explains this as follows: “On each day of the six day creation week, novel entities were formed outside of the system of nature currently in operation and, on the seventh day (Shabbos), the state of the world became lasting and established just as it is at present.”

In a more general sense, as I have commented recently on Hirhurim, I am more concerned with intellectual honesty in public discussion, and to an extent, less afraid where the chips fall on the Slifkin issue. In other words, each side should admit to any weakness or perceived weakness in its positions, and not be afraid of allowing time to the other's arguments. This goes beyond the Slifkin issue, and I think applies to explaining any issue of Torah hashkafa, Charedi policy, or even basic emunah(I realize that emunah al pi chakirah is not a simple issue, but I'm referring to those who benefit from the approach).

I am not saying that this blog is necessarily the place to discuss every single issue, and therefore I give thought to what I post. But there should be a place for rigorous back and forth, for allowing the same thought process that is used in learning gemarah. I believe that intellectual honesty, strengthens, not weakens the Torah, and in the spirit of attempting that, I see fit to allow a link on this blog to a contra-Slifkin view, as well.

Annapolis Peace Conference

2007-11-27T22:24:00.000-05:00

In reaction to the Annapolis Peace Conference, Orthodox Jewish groups are focusing not only on political advocacy, but also on generating awareness on what Yerushalayim means to Jews spiritually, and that it can not be taken for granted.

These topics were mentioned at the Agudah Convention, this past Motzoie Shabbos, which I attended. I also link to the OU's IPA website on the topic, and to The Gift of Jerusalem, from this past week's Jewish Press.

Third Ohel Benefit Concert

2007-11-27T21:52:00.000-05:00

From "Every Neshema Can Soar", a musical video presentation at the Ohel Concert, earlier this month, sung by Shlomie Dachs and Son, to the tune of his "Hamalach"(click on song # 4, here, to sample):

"Tatty, I wonder, I am so blessed,
But my friend-he's very different;he's not like the rest,
He's so shy and quiet, he can't really play,
Yet he's still one of the letters, so precious, each one Hashem made ..."

"It's true there are special ones,
But he will learn, my precious son,
For I know the people who work and who teach.
With their skills they will touch his mind,
He will never be left behind,
And his Torah will be within reach.

The theme of the concert was indeed one of a Sefer Torah, and an actual one was dedicated at the concert.

Also unique was the fact that the concert was held despite a Broadway theater strike, thanks to the intervention of local politicians, as well as the dedication of the stage hands, ticket-takers, etc., who worked free of charge when they found out about the worthiness of the cause!

Featured at the concert were Yaakov Shwekey, Shlomo Simcha, Shloime Dachs, Chazzan Yechezkel Klang, Shalsheles Junior, and a child chazzan, Simcha Leveinstein.

Silence is Interpreted as Acquiescence

2007-11-21T17:25:00.000-05:00

Rabbi Eli Teitlebaum writes to the Jewish Press:

I would like to add my name to those who approve of Rabbi Yakov Horowitz’s Nov. 9 op-ed article “You Might End Up Dead.” While these crazies are fortunately few in number, they make a massive chillul Hashem, since the media do not differentiate between wild extremists and most other Orthodox Jews.

If we remain silent when women are attacked by misguided individuals, we are all guilty – as we learn from what happened when the holy shevet of Binyamin refused to take action when a woman was violated by a wild gang of youths in their midst. A tremendous number of Jews died in vain and the shevet of Binyamin was nearly wiped out.

One can resort to civil disobedience but never to violence. Often our Torah leaders are afraid to call mass protests against public Torah desecrations only because of the fear that some individuals will get out of hand and receive all the media attention, thereby causing a chillul Hashem instead of a kiddush shem shomayim.

All of us must protest such behavior lest our silence be interpreted as acquiescence. Unless we all clearly distance ourselves from such behavior we, too, are guilty.

Let us hope for the day when letters such as this one will no longer be necessary !

Respect for Torah Leaders

2007-11-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

Rabbi Avi Shafran has an important essay about the vital importance of according proper respect to the views of gedolie Torah(Torah leaders).

He quotes the chazal regarding "binyan yeladim stirah, v'stiras zekenim binyan":

Commenting on the decision made by the Judean King Rechavam (King Solomon’s son) to shun the advice of the elders of his father’s court and heed instead the advice of younger advisors (Kings I:12), the Talmud remarks: “[What might seem] constructive on the part of the young [can in fact be] destructive; and [what might seem] destructive on the part of elders [can in fact be] constructive” (Nedarim, 40a). Rechavam’s wrong choice brought schism to the Jewish kingdom, fanning the flames of rebellion.

I noted the balance, towards the end of the article, between having an opinion and respecting views of gedolim:

It’s not only the so-called “Law of Unintended Consequences” that can figure into weighty decisions. A host of factors can make the right decision seem the wrong one, puzzling observers, even outraging them. To be sure, we all have a right to our opinion, and much can be gained by sharing our perspectives with others.

But two vital commodities in all-too-short supply these days are humility and respect for elders. We do well to consider that our confidence—“evidence” and all—that we know what is best no more qualifies us to make the right decision than putting a ranger’s hat on a bear’s head and a shovel in his hand makes him an expert on forest conservation.

At times, I will meet a person who will tell me, or imply , that I am not permitted to even express an opinion because I do not have daas Torah. I believe that such views do harm to true kvod chachamim, by implying that we live in a communist society, where a person is not even allowed to express an opinion!

This is why I am happy that Rabbi Shafran writes "we all have a right to our opinion, and much can be gained by sharing our perspectives with others". Of course, there is an appropriate way to express an opinion, and how to discuss words of Torah leaders. Much depends on the forum and on the care one takes in choosing how one expresses himself.

Kavad hatorah is vital, yet it does not come naturally, given that we naturally value personal autonomy. We should not, however, make it harder than it actually is, by implying that daas Torah means that we are not permitted to think for ourselves.

Creating a Safe Atmosphere for Dialogue

2007-11-02T01:49:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz has a very important article that discusses the importance of encouraging and allowing for the greatest degree of participation in public dialogue, as opposed to intimidating people, intentionally or otherwise, into silence. Chazal tell us that one can learn from everyone, even from the smallest person, so we should not intimidate people, but rather, encourage participation to the greatest extent possible.

This is a topic which is near to my heart, and I think that it is also the first such article I have seen which made this point in the Charedi press(I will stand corrected if I'm wrong). If so, I give a big yasher koach to Rabbi Horowitz !

First, a little humor:

In my hometown of Monsey, New York, there are several weekly newspapers that are mailed to the community free of charge. I never cease to be amazed when people decline to sign their names in letters to the editor about mundane matters. Here are the types of letters that appear week after week:

“I would like to thank the Town officials for doing such a wonderful job plowing the streets after last week's snowstorm” E.R.

“I really enjoy the Dvar Torah column every week.” Name Withheld.

Whenever I read one of those letters, my first reaction is, “Wow, you are really going out on a limb there! No wonder you didn’t want to post your name on that letter.”

The article continues:

What is most troubling is that the only voices that are being silenced are the moderate ones. The kanoim, those in our community with the most extremist views, comfortably thunder their macho’os, protestations, in very public forums with nary a concern, while those who have more mainstream views are intimidated to express them.

Rabbi Horowitz concludes:

We desperately need forums where these matters are candidly discussed in an environment of mutual respect with an eye towards generating solutions to these challenges; where all views are encouraged and appreciated and where those who care enough – and have the courage – to ask tough questions are venerated for their dedication to the future of our children.

I would just add that each community and publication will have it's own limits of acceptable tolerance, of the limits of elu velu . The specific focus of Rabbi Horowitz's article is regarding educational matters such as helping troubled teens, where there is indeed a greater leeway for discussion and different opinion. As opposed to certain social or educational issues, an idea on a more haskafically/theologically significant topic, such as on Science and Torah will obviously not get printed unless it is acceptable by the vaad ruchani(rabbinical board) of the particular publication. I can understand that.

However, within certain limits, one can try to have more tolerance even on hashkafa topics. The idea is not to extend the limits of elu v'elu on core issues, but rather to find more tolerance within them on the non-core issues. The problem becomes, of course, if every small topic turns into a core issue; however, Not Everything Is a Ten.

It is also important to distinguish between agreeing with an idea, versus merely hearing a person out, and trying to understand where they are coming from. Participants need to think with nuance, and to carefully distinguish between various ideas, and to ask for clarification. Obviously, not all forums lend themselves out to this to the same extent , but all discussion should see nuance as a value.

I indeed believe that the image of the Torah community would be improved, were we to take this to message to heart.

Finally, there are, recent, positive examples where more than one Charedi publication has made an effort to encourage a participation of a wider range of ideas. I believe in giving credit where it is due, and perhaps such an example will be a subject of a future posting on this blog.

Benefits of Public Self-Criticism

2007-10-25T21:17:00.000-04:00

There was a discussion on this thread about the issue of Ramat Beit Shemesh fringe-element zealotry. Someone termed such discussion "Charedi bashing".

The other side of the issue is that if there is silence, people might say that the Charedi world:

1) does not care about its own image

2) allows itself to be taken hostage by fringe elements

3) is not open to honest self-criticism

We would then have to apply the same standards to all other groups--Jewish or non-Jewish-- if and when they are defensive about discussing and responding to outside criticism. Yet most people, at least political conservatives, argue that all communities need to take responsibility with " the buck stops here " attitude, and that denying responsibility and shifting blame is no option.

It is true that there are distinctions between the Israeli situation and certainly some of the situations in the previous paragraph, and also that the Charedi community has strong and healthy points. There is also complexity to Ramat Beit Shemesh fringe zealotry, which includes factors such as different groups and the secular-religious kulturkampf, both of which I would guess, make a quick solution difficult.

But if the default Charedi response is to not take a strong public stance, then it becomes harder to argue any cogent pro-Charedi position. Without appropriate self-criticism, Charedi defenders wouldn't be able point to honest, public self-reflection as part of a larger position which they have staked out.

This is in addition to people within the Frum/Charedi world--children and adults-- who will question, saying, "what in the world is going on?".

Perhaps there could be an interactive session with rabbonim and lay leaders, where people can honestly debate, ask questions and offer suggestions without fear of criticism, given that the issue is as important as any other community issue to Klal Yisrael and Kvod Shomayim.

Americans can apply pressure, which will help those who wish to thwart the zealots, but there is a need to harness that collective power and work with the rabbonim in Israeli community.

Power of a Mitzvah

2007-10-18T19:37:00.000-04:00

There is beautiful and inspiring story about Migdal Ohr posted here:

While the scroll was carefully laid on the table next to a special pen and ink, Rabbi Grossman addressed the soldiers. "My holy ones! I am going to bestow upon you the merit of a holy mitzvah, which can be considered a once in a life time opportunity. Each one of you will complete a letter in the Torah scroll. While you are executing this holy task, each one of you should pray the prayer of his heart and request from G-d that the merit of the letter he has completed will protect him in battle. Holy sparks will emanate from these sacred letters and disperse around you, creating a protective shield which will keep you safe and bring you home safely.

"Mother!" cried one of the soldiers into his cell phone, "you wont believe what I have done! I have written a letter in a Torah scroll! Mother, are you there? Can you hear?! Me, a Shmutznik (a member of a non- religious Kibbutz), who can't differentiate between Shabbat and the rest of the week, who has not seen tzizit (ritual garment) in my life. Me, I wrote a letter in a Torah scroll! I can't believe it. I can't believe it. "

At the end, Rabbi Grossman concludes:

Two weeks later, around midnight, Rabbi Grossman received a phone call. "Rabbi, your blessing has come true!" exclaimed the commander over the phone. "Everyone is safe and we are on our way to you. We will be there by two 'o clock in the morning"....

"I felt as I had never felt before," recalls Rabbi Grossman. "Each one told me his personal miracle. "One soldier, a kibbutznik and a lawyer in civilian life, relayed an incredible miracle. A group of soldiers were gathered in an empty house in a Lebanese village when one of them forgetfully lit a cigarette. Hezbollah terrorists immediately noticed the light and fired an anti-tank missile at the house. Coincidentally, two horses from the village ran in front of the house and were hit and killed. The missile, deflected by the horses, veered away from the house, landing elsewhere. Incredibly, the horses miraculously saved the soldiers inside the house.

Accepting Criticism Gracefully

2007-10-17T18:43:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yaakov Salomon has a very insightful article about books that he had written( I first read it in this book).

I quote in part:

I wrote a book.

I wish I could say that it doesn't matter to me if you buy it, read it, or like it. But I'd be lying. It does matter to me. A lot.

Am I proud that I feel that way? No. Does it mean that I am insecure, vulnerable and on wobbly terrain? No. It means I am normal (at least in this area of life). All of us, to varying degrees, are concerned with the opinions that others have of us, especially when we display and disclose our feelings, skills, beliefs, activities, and idiosyncrasies to the public eye. That's how we are wired.

He goes on to discuss the roller-coaster of emotions, and quotes the Kotzker about a dichotomy which is related to this area.

I thought of this yesterday as I was speaking to two people about my previous post. The first, an acquaintance of mine who I sometimes show my writings to, was unhappy with it, as he felt that it might be understood the wrong way. I then discussed this with another person who gave me the advice to extract the valid criticism, but he also asked me why I thought it had merit to be posted. I came to the conclusion that the core of what I've written does have at least some merit, but it could have been presented and framed differently.

There is a balance here, because a person who isn't open to other's advice and opinions, will never learn anything new and beneficial. On the other hand, one needs to know where one is correct, and this balance is an art which we hopefully all can learn and practice.

The "Neo Haskalah" and the Need for an Individualized Response

2007-10-15T19:40:00.000-04:00

The purpose of this post is neither to give support to any specific books of Rabbi Slifkin(as I made clear in the actual post), and certainly not to support a movement of "Neo-Haskalah", if such indeed exists. My own inclination, is a rational and a thoughtful one(at least I try on that end), and my response to the topic raised by the Jewish Observer was to further examine the question of "Adults at Risk" in a psychological, historical and intellectual context. The points could be developed further, and other people probably will respond with their own ideas elsewhere ; I hope that those will indeed be printed in the Jewish Observer.

Following up on part of the focus of the Jewish Observer, which was that there are thoughtful people who think about issues fundamental to Jewish belief, I wrote of a need for them to have an individualized approach which Rav Dessler spoke about. I also hoped that people would get chizuk and inspiration from this current posting.

The general point of an individualized approach which could help people, and which includes previously acceptable opinions of Gedolim, should not have anything to do with to do with ideology--Centrist, Charedi, etc. Be that is it may, I do not make decisions for the tzibbur or for individuals, and obviously the post is merely to stimulate thought. If anyone has other ideas about what an "individualized approach" for Science/Torah issues should consist of, or if it indeed it should exist at all, please share that in the comments.

A commentor by the name of "Frum Guy" wrote the following(see link) about the Jewish Observer article titled "Adults at Risk" , which I quote from in part:

..We may be on the verge of a Neo-Haskalah. I'm not even sure what it would entail, but it's going to be something. The cover story of this month's Jewish Observer is about this Neo-Haskalah; they just call it "Adults at Risk" ...

"Frum Guy" raises an interesting historical comparison between Volozhin and the contemporary Charedi milieu. Perhaps history works in cycles, and there is a comparison(and differences, of course) between the European Haskalah and today, both in terms of the issues themselves, as well as the social milieu which cause vulnerability, like a risk to a disease.

At least some "Adults at Risk" need an individual approach. According to Rav Dessler(Michtav M'Eliyahu, IV, page 354) the Rambam wrote the Moreh Nevuchim for people who needed an individual approach. Rav Dessler says that this approach was acceptable for them as long as it was not against the Halacha. What is the equivalent of such an "individual approach today" ?

The approach of publicly stating that previously acceptable opinions are kefirah, while it would benefit many people, would not seem to help someone struggling with questions. Such people, indeed, need an individualized approach which is different that that which the multitudes require. I think that such calculations, indeed partially depend upon how one understands the causes of "Kids/Adults at Risk".

Two views are presented towards the end of the following Jerusalem Post article about what is bothering contemporary Frum youth:

"Some Jews will be scared away from Orthodoxy," said the anonymous rabbi. "I believe people should be allowed to retain their individuality. They should not be asked to behave like robots. I don't expect books like Slifkin's or Nadel's to become part of normative haredi Judaism. But these ideas should be made available to those who ask the questions."

The educator at Machon Lev agrees that answers should be provided, but believes the apparent contradiction between science and religion is not a burning issue for most religious youth.

"A century ago the contradiction destroyed the spirituality of thousands of Jews. But today there are many religious scientists and professors who have refuted supposed inconsistencies.

"I think what truly bothers contemporary religious youth is a much more personal, existential question. The real thinkers are concerned with why they were put on this earth and what they are supposed to do here."

I have no idea about what the numbers are, but one should not downplay the intellectual factor. And if indeed there are people who are questioning, they would need an individual approach, just as in the Rambam's time. While not answering every question, having a shittah such as Rav Avroham ben HaRambam, while eschewed for the multitudes as a result of some statements connected with the Slifkin ban, can be invaluable for the "individual approach".

Rabbi Dr . Aron Hirsch Fried(page 62) writes about the value of intellectual inquiry in education :

There is an unwritten but whispered rule amongst Bais Yaakov girls that, “If you have some really serious questions, whatever you do, don’t ask your teacher, not unless you don’t care what it does to your shidduch chances!” This attitude towards thinking and questioning drives away some of our brightest and most honest young people. It also flies in the face of Rishonim like the Mabit who insist that it is imperative that we learn to think and to and to question and to chase down answers on our own.

Rabbi Fried quoted the Mabit that:

"It is not fitting for a person, a human being, to neglect to research anything that is within his ability to grasp. For example: A person is told a novel phenomenon, and he believes it because it was told to him by a good and trustworthy person. If he has the ability to comprehend and know that phenomenon and he makes no effort to do so on his own, it is considered as slovenly laziness"

I don’t think I need to elaborate on the dangers of such an anti-intellectual atmosphere in our society and in our schools.

I also remember hearing Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hirsch Weinreb saying at the Slifkin book launch, to the effect, that we need to encourage questions and the exercise of the intellect. While I do not necessarily agree with the particular book, I do think favorably of Rabbi Weinreb's general point made below, and that anything which was acceptable by previous generations of Gedolim, should be preserved today as well:

Many of our Sages and leaders through the generations have had the luxury of “preaching to the choir.” Their constituents, followers, disciples, and students lived in the same intellectual world as they did, were willing to accept the teachings of their mentors without serious question, and indeed lived lives in which they were not exposed to ideological frameworks at odds with those of their master. However, throughout the ages, some of our leaders have had to cope with constituencies which did question them. These constituencies were exposed to different cultural and philosophical influences, often at odds with the core teachings of these great men. And so these men stepped forward courageously and often at the risk of their own reputations, to provide direction for those who were lost and answers to those who were puzzled, and even guidance and words of gentle rebuke to those who were rebellious and hostile.

The heroes of the latter category include Saadia Gaon and Rambam. In the post enlightenment era, the need for approaches modeled by Rabbeinu Saadia and Rambam, approaches which dealt head-on with
challenges from outside normative Judaism, increased many times over….

Today, too, there are leaders among us who are blessed with constituencies that are not exposed to ideologies alien to traditional Judaism, or who are oblivious, intentionally or otherwise, to the challenges of these alien systems. Fortunate are these leaders, for they can continue to teach and preach what they see as the unadulterated and pure message of the Torah. However, there are those among us who are confronted daily with Jews whose exposure to the culture and philosophy of our times stimulate probing and consuming questions about Judaism. Some of these Jews come from the ranks of the non-observant who wish to draw closer to Torah and mitzvos but who find it difficult to integrate the thought system with which they have grown up with the teachings of the Torah to which they are newly introduced. But also among these individuals are those who have been steeped from birth in a traditional education and in a traditional understanding of Torah but who are now confronted, either through formal secular education, general reading, or discussions with those in their everyday environment, with new challenges of doubtand perplexity.

I also wish to emphasize that the Jewish Observer article and Dr. Fried's point about validating and encouraging questions are unrelated to the merits of the Slifkin Ban or even the different opinions which were acceptable previously. Rather I am merely pointing out that according to Rav Dessler, many individuals may need special guidance, and assuming that such individuals exist within the FFB world, then having opinions which in previous generations were acceptable might be helpful.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Chovos Halevovos in Shaar Yichud Hamaaseh discusses internal conflicts, including intellectual ones, that could turn a person away from Avodas Hashem; questions and doubts, are a human, and age old issue. Rav Yeruchem Levovitz(Daas Torah, V'Zos Haberacha) writes that it's possible that the Chovos Halevavos himself overcame such conflicts(similar to Rav Hutner's famous letter about the Chafetz Chaim and Shmiras Halashon), and therefore wrote about them. If it is true that the best of our people can, or need to, go through such a process in their spiritual growth, than their needs, at least in private, need to be taken into account.

I think that "it's the best of times, and the worst of times". In some ways the Charedi community is in a better position vis- a -vis 19th century Volozhin, but in some ways it is worse off. The historical comparison and contrast is probably a topic in of itself.

May we see the day when " the world will be filled with the knowledge of Hashem as water covers the bed of the sea".

Frum Grass Root-Level Discussion

2007-10-12T02:14:00.000-04:00

I was very happy that Rabbi Horowitz opened for discussion on his website, the topic of the correct balance of open discussion in the charedi world. The following are my thoughts stimulated by two of his questions:

What percentage of the members in our community would feel “safe” to sign their name in a letter to the editor if they are writing about a subject that they feel passionately about?

Part of that issue is that we live in a close-knit community, and perhaps people do wish to be stopped on the street with questions about their personal views. But I think to an extent, it is a reflection of a fear of being criticized. What can be done about that fear, to the extent that it is based on reality?

When speaking about creating a "safe" environment for people to express themselves, whether in the media or in person, the difficulty is that one needs to satisfy people with different needs. Different communities have their own boundaries of what's "elu v'elu", who are Gedolim, and what's part of the Mesorah. Whatever differences(and of course there are similarities) exist within Orthodox groups, a given publication will need to create a line representing what's no longer acceptable, and one needs to accept that line, just as one needs to allow new publications to cater to those who don't find a voice within the given publications.

Nevertheless, within a certain acceptable range of "eleu v'elu" there can be room for more tolerance. It is not that I disagree with someone who may have a "frummer" opinion than me, but rather I think that there is sometimes room for the disagreement to be expressed with more tolerance. I am speaking now of disagreements even within what we call the "Charedi World".

"Are discussions of matters that affect our community helpful even if they do not result in swift, obvious positive change?"

The key is to be as positive as possible, whether of the community, or it's leaders. Even when discussing a problem, one can do it in a way which is not totally negative. Besides protecting oneself from criticism which will detract from one's message, it is also a correct thing, in of itself.

R. Yisrael Salanter says that an individual needs to know his strengths, which are the means to accomplish in this world, and similarly, a community's strengths can help it overcome its weaknesses. The problem becomes when one thinks that a given community, or a hashkafa, has only strengths or only weaknesses.

Adults at Risk: The FFB/BT Symbiotic Relationship

2007-10-11T21:03:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz posts an interesting and important article written by Rabbis Mordechai Becher and Chanon Gordon, that appeared in the past month's Jewish Observer. I quote from the end of the article, in a section titled "F.F.Bs and B.Ts - A Symbiotic Relationship" :

Much has been written about the importance of ensuring that people from a secular background who have turned to Torah and have committed themselves to Yiddishkeit should aim to become integrated into the mainstream Orthodox community. To that end, the F.F.B community plays a significant function as role models and mentors.

Paradoxically in the case of the Adult at Risk, which occurs almost exclusively within the F.F.B. camp, Baalei Teshuvah can serve as the spark that rekindles the flame of inspiration in the established frum community. Recordings of shiurim by “kiruv” lecturers, reading materials that address questions F.F.B’s so often feel too embarrassed to ask, and the popularity of kiruv type seminars in the heart of frum communities are now common sights …

If there is any positive fall-out from the looming Adult at Risk crisis it seems to be the fact that as the kiruv and teshuvah movements mature and expand, the newly observant and the traditionally observant worlds are becoming more intertwined in a positive and mutually beneficial way … After all, at the end of the day, we all report to the same Boss!

The phenonenon of Adults at Risk has always existed--al t'aamin b'atzmacha ad yom mascha-- but it has different applications in different times.

As far as the connection of BT's and FFB's in this matter, it brings to mind, on a communal level, the passuk in Koheles: shalach lachmecha al pnei hamoyim ki b'rov hayamim timtzaenu(as well as kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh).

Baseball as a Metaphor

2007-10-10T22:28:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of October, I offer the following discussions about making use of baseball, or sports in general, as metaphors for more sublime purposes. This post(as well, I assume, the articles quotes therein) was written in a light vein for sports fans, and is not to be deemed an unqualified endorsement of the sports industry.

Rabbi Emanuel Feldman has written that he always has

liked baseball, its non-violence, its patience, the solitary struggle of lonely pitcher against lonely batter. And consider its religious undertones: the goal is to circle the infield and then come back to the starting point, to return to beginnings. Unlike football or basketball, where the clock ultimately runs out, baseball is timeless: a tie game can theoretically continue until eternity.

There is even a lesson to be learned, as in here and here , from a saying which originated with the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Parenthetically, on the subject of sports aphorisms, I once read an essay on the philosophical value of Yogi-isms.

But moving back to the Jewish side of things(l'havdil):

Rabbi Baruch Leff, in a response to an internet article writes that

I wanted to utilize the Yankee loss to teach a powerful Torah lesson about arrogance. Along the way, I think I hit on why many non-Yankee fans dislike the Yankees. But the article is really not about the Yankees, it's about the evils of arrogance. I hope the reader can see that.

Lest one dismiss the above as making use of dubious non-Torah concepts for outreach or other mere mundane, utilitarian purposes, I conclude with Rabbi Aaaron Rakeffet's more comprehensive discussion of the pertinent and over-arching issue of whether one may gain mussar or moral instruction from sports, and if so, how? That is really the heart(and the heat) of the issue.

There’s no question that athletes become models, and there’s a lot to learn from a good athlete. Hopefully we can learn about fair play. From Joe DiMaggio, I don’t have to tell you how much mussar you can learn from a guy that always hustled. Halevai, we should daven, l’havdil, with the same feeling that he went to the ballpark every day. He was always running around on the field. He was asked in the late 1940’s, why are you running, what do you have to prove, you’re already well-known? He answered “there may be a kid who’s never seen me before, and he should know that I always hustle.” There’s a lot of bad in athletics. You see these guys are arrested for dog fighting, the drugs, the women, what happened with Rodriguez. This is ma’asim shebechol yom with the breakdown of society. Marriage is not sacred, a woman has become nothing more than an object, there’s no concept of love or subjectivity. Of course, a person has to differentiate. On the other hand, we shouldn’t be naïve. A yeshiva boy who goes to a ballgame knows he’s basically looking at non-Jews who are poor role models. He’s going for the sport. Shawn Green may be born Jewish, but he’s not yet the gadol hador.

It’s my feeling, and I spoke about this recently, that baseball has such a hold on our youth davka because it’s slow-moving and you can think. In other words, there’s inside basketball and inside football and inside baseball. It’s beneath the surface. What play are you going to use? In other sports it’s quick; you don’t play a role in it. But in baseball, left-hander, right-hander, pull the infield in, push the outfield back, give up the run, worry about the bunt, go for the double play, the squeeze, should he steal, what do you do, put him in scoring position, hit away. There’s so much involved that you have time to think. To me, if you have that Talmudic mind, it’s one of the reasons you like baseball.

I also want to state something else- that one of the most inspiring figures I’ve seen in my life was Jackie Robinson. There, you have enough mussar. Leaving alone the fact that he had a beautiful marriage, and his wife should live and be well, but what the man did to break the color barrier, to go against all odds, to be maledicted and not respond. You talk about Branch Rickey who never went to the ballpark on Sunday. He promised his mother, who was a pious Christian, some sect of Protestant, and to them it was, pardon the term, apikorsut to go to the ballpark on Sunday. So he never went. There’s so much you can develop and learn from all that. From that point of view, you do have what to learn. And it’s no different than the Gemara. The Gemara in Kiddushin talks about kibbud av v’em and says our greatest role models are gentiles who wouldn’t wake up their fathers to get precious stones or the Para Adumah. Whatever was involved, they wouldn’t wake up their fathers. So you see the Gemara didn’t hesitate to use gentiles as examples. So baruch Hashem we have role models, and a good rebbe can do a lot from baseball, or all sports.

Now, it may all be shtuyot, someone can be cynical and sarcastic. But, when all is said and done, I would say that over the years my knowledge of baseball made hundreds of kids into bnei Torah. You ask me how? I don’t say this applies to the kollel, because they’re older and they’re established. But you have no idea the effect it has on younger students when the rebbe knows baseball. You can ask them 20 or 30 years later and they’ll say “Rebbe you changed my life when you talked about Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio.” Why? Because a kid comes into a rebbe’s shiur, and the rebbe knows how to learn a little, and beseder, he’s a yarei shamayim, and he’s living Torah. In the kid’s mind, who can be like the rebbe? He’s from a different generation. Suddenly the rebbe opens his mouth to talk baseball and he’s one of the kids. Now he can teach Torah.

This is not a sports blog, but 'tis the Season, and I suppose all bloggers have their moments of weakness.

Choose Your Battles Wisely

2007-09-18T14:32:00.000-04:00

I sometimes think that communities and organizations could benefit from the same principles that individuals use in their lives.

Dr. Richard Carlson, in Don't Sweat the Small Stuff...and It's All Small Stuff and others mention the strategy of picking one's battles as a better way of living. Carlson writes on page 77, " If you choose your battles wisely, you’ll be far more effective in winning those battles that are truly important ". This in turn, is based on assigning a relative level of importance to various issues.

In a recent article, Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz mentions this point as a political strategy for the Israeli Frum community(I remember a similar point mentioned in the Jewish Observer following Tommy Lapid's victory), and he also notes the similarity between a community and an individual's prioritizing. I think that this is a cruical point to be considered in order to realize haramas keren HaTorah.

What concerns me most is that this particular issue of the clock change is indicative of the ‘everything-is-a-10 mindset’ that some or many in our community maintain. Certain issues are indeed a 10; and we rely on the daas Torah of our gedolim to guide us as to which they are. But in all other non-essential matters, we should practice the concept of darchei noam, ‘paths of pleasantness,’ and be sensitive to the wants and needs of others outside our community. Keep in mind that no one was ever brought closer to Hashem by force. And even if we don’t practice tolerance for its own sake, we ought to do so strictly for pragmatic reasons. There is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later (probably sooner) there will be a colossal push-back from secular Israelis who are resentful at their growing perception that observant Jews are not only appropriately lobbying for the right to practice religion as they wish to, but are imposing their will on the broader community.

Communities can indeed learn from individual's strategies.

Concerts Revisited

2007-09-05T12:45:00.000-04:00

When reading the following, I am tempted to add to the list of sefasayim yishak meshiv devarim nechochim(see end of this post).

On a personal note, I have had the opportunity to meet Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum(as well as Rabbi Motty Katz), and I admire the work that both have done over the years on behalf of the Torah community.

The following is an article from Yeshiva World, which had recently appeared in the Yated:

I still remember when the Pirchei Agudas Yisrael put on a play and concert more than forty years ago in Montauk Junior High School. ( The play was based on the book Family Aguilar. ) There were some who tried to convince the rabbonim to put a ban on it. Since I was the president of Pirchei at the time, Rabbi Moshe Sherer z.l, asked me to go down to the venerable gaon hador, Rabbi Moshe Fienstien z.t.l., to get his halachic opinion. Not only did he not ban it, but he gave it his blessings. He understood only too well the importance of giving the boys a kosher alternative; otherwise they would soon find their pleasures elsewhere. One must be very careful before imposing restrictions. “Restrict everything and everything becomes permitted,” is what my father z.t.l. once said.When some tried to ban the Miami Boys Choir Concert in N.Y. and tried to get Rabbi Pam z.t.l.s’ signature as well as that of the Mirer Rosh Yeshiva to ban it, they both refused to sign(emphasis mine, BH).

A number of years ago, Rabbi Motty Katz of JEP and I organized a Chanuka trip to Washington on the two days that yeshivas give off for Chanuka vacation. .... I received a very nasty letter in the mail from a prominent rosh yeshiva accusing me of causing bitul Torah and admonishing me for organizing the trip. I very respectfully replied that it wasn’t I who was causing any bittul Torah but rather the yeshivas that gave the kids off for two days without providing them with something positive to do. I told him that if he wanted, I would show him where some of his students are hanging out during this time. I never received a reply.....

Note as well, the balancing elements in the article. For example:

Others can decide on their posek whom they wish to follow. But whoever it is, the p’sak must be followed even if it hurts....Yes, there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed in order to make sure that concerts are conducted in a true Yiddish atmosphere and flavor..."

Rabbi Teitelbaum was interviewed about the above essay, this past Motzoie Shabbos, on the Zev Brenner Show. Regarding one concert which was banned in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Teitelbaum relates:

I went over to the.. agitators behind it-- I met them. They were standing in front of Binyanei Haumah... I especially went; I heard that they banned it, [and] I wanted to find out what's going on-- what happened, is there any legitimate reason [to ban the concerts]?

There were about four people or five standing in front-- I have a picture of them.

Rabbi Teitelbaum:

What is the reason they're banning them?

Response:

Don't you see the pritzus(immodesty)?

Rabbi Teitelbaum:

I'm wearing glasses over here. Please point out the priztus, and please come with me… I'd like to see [the priztus]--show it to me!

...There were two separate entrances. If that was called pritzus, then you can't walk out of your house in the street anywhere, especially not in Geulah on Friday. That particular concert, I will be an eidus [witness] there was no pritzus whatsoever…

Rabbi Teitelbaum concluded the radio interview:

You'd need another five hours for me to tell you all the conversations I've had with Gedolim about this[ie, the subject of his essay]. But in any case, I just have one point: stop banning, and start straightening things out! We have problems; straighten them out!

Back to the essay, where Rabbi Teitelbaum concludes:

We definitely need our gedolim to guide us, and if we come to them with sincere requests to teach us to run activities al pi Torah, they would respond wisely and constructively. We should no longer leave the field open to those few agitators and connivers who choose to deprive our young people of positive outlets. For if we close the doors to that which is permitted, they’ll unfortunately, soon find other places to fill the void!

Kudos to Rabbi Teitelbaum for bravely addressing an issue on the minds of many people!

Worldliness, Walls, and the Haredi World: On the Money Interview

2007-08-22T23:50:00.000-04:00

I just finished listening to Steve Savitsky's OU Radio interview with Dr Aaron Hirsch Fried, a psychology professor at Stern College who is part of the Chasidic community, and has been involved in education in the Chasidishe community for many years. I also link to the Hakirah article that was the focus of the interview, but I highly recommend that one listens to the OU interview, as there are a number of responses that I found absolutely fascinating and refreshing.

As part of the Charedi community, Dr. Fried certainly appreciates its strengths, achievements, and beauty, in addition to being respectful of its leadership . However for me, his views are a breath of fresh air, and are certainly not what one hears, at least for the most part, in public.

On the positive side, Hamodia and Torah Umesorah have both asked him to share his views with their audience; he has already done so with the latter, and his talk was well received.

The following description by Steve Savitsky(about 16 minutes into the interview) sums up the contrast between the approaches of building firewalls against secular culture, versus dealing with it head-on, and teaching a person to use his or her intelligence to see which aspects of secular society one can accept, and which one needs to reject:

Do you want people to think or not think?... If we create a world where no one thinks-- everything is done by rote, it'd done because this is the way it's done-- then you never have any problems. Once you open that little genie of , " let me get you to think", you start thinking about everything…And what you[Dr. Fried] are really saying is that people who are intelligent-- and we are intelligent people, baruch Hashem-- they are going to think anyway, whether you like it or not.

One should note that there are variations in the Charedi world, and that no society is all or nothing, as far as using either of the two approaches. For example, positive mention should be made of Haredi weekly magazines that have practical and scientific information for both children and adults.

According to Dr. Fried(about twenty minutes into the interview), besides an estimated 15% of children at risk,

there are also a lot of people who are on the "outside", towing the line, living the life, walking the walk, talking the talk, but "inside" have lost it--have lost the values, have lost the beliefs and are a bit cynical.

On page 62, Dr. Fried writes:

There is an unwritten but whispered rule amongst Bais Yaakov girls that, “If youhave some really serious questions, whatever you do, don’t ask yourteacher, not unless you don’t care what it does to your shidduch chances!” This attitude towards thinking and questioning drives away some of our brightest and most honest young people. It also flies in the face of Rishonim like the Mabit who insist that it is imperative that we learn to think and to question and to chase down answers on our own.

I agree with the Mabit(not that he needs my haskamah), because the Rambam and other great figures in our history no doubt made use of the capacity to question and of their rational faculties, as part of the process in their growth and development as Torah personalities(see this post as well). On the other hand, we should also recognize the accomplishments of our Yeshivos and Beis Yaakov's in raising generations of committed Jews.

In the article(pg 47-48), Dr. Fried quotes from Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch zt'l at length:

Finally, it would be most perverse and criminal of us to seek to instill into our children a contempt, based on ignorance and untruth, for everything that is not specifically Jewish, for all other human arts and sciences, in the belief that by inculcating our children with such a negative attitude we could safeguard them from contacts with the scholarly and scientific endeavors of the rest of mankind….

You will then see that your simple-minded calculations were just as criminal as they were perverse. Criminal, because they enlisted the help of untruth supposedly in order to protect the truth, and because you have thus departed from the path upon which your own Sages havepreceded you and beckoned you to follow them. Perverse, because by so doing you have achieved precisely theopposite of what you wanted to accomplish.

For now your child, suspecting you of either deceit or lamentable ignorance, will transfer the blame and the disgrace that should rightly be placed only upon you and your conductto all the Jewish wisdom and knowledge, all the Jewish education and training which he received under your guidance. Your child will consequently begin to doubt all of Judaism which (so, at least, it must seem to him from your behavior) can exist only in the night and darkness of ignorance and which must close its eyes and the minds of its adherents to the light of all knowledge if it is not to perish.

To shift to my own thoughts, which do not represent those of Dr. Fried, I recently heard someone whose opinions I respect, and who has far better Charedi credentials than myself, say that he was(at least initially) "torn asunder by the Slifkin issue".

I, myself, try hard to be positive about the future direction of the Charedi community, but sometimes I find it hard to do so, as I think that the Slifkin issue is just one part of a general approach of bans and of building higher and thicker walls, as an ongoing response to secular society.

On the other hand, perhaps we should be more positive and note the balanced and nuanced aspects of the Haredi world, and continue to fervently hope that it will balance itself out, both in America and in Israel(both two different types of communities). Perhaps there are hopeful aspects in this regard which need to be magnified, and to be brought to public attention.

Listening to the interview with Dr. Fried indeed gives one renewed hope that balanced and moderate voices in the Haredi world will be given a chance to speak. In either case--- as many people wrestle with the uncertainty of the future direction of the Charedi world-- there is room in the different feeling--both positive and negative-- manifested by that struggle, itself, for growth, as the Midrash and Ramban discuss about "nisayon" bringing out latent potential( which we will read in a few weeks on Rosh Hashanah). Indeed, directly facing the strengths and weaknessess of a particular approach, rather than providing full defenses of Haredi positions and policies is, paradoxically, the best answer for some people.

I once had a chavrusah who had a rather demonstrative way of expressing himself upon seeing an explanation in the gemera or rishonim that he particularly enjoyed. He used to kiss the sefer and say from Mishlie(24:26) , sefasayim yishak meshiv devarim nechochim, " [it is fitting for] lips to be kissed[or for one to become silent in the presence of] a person who gives a correct answer"(see Rashi and Tosophos to Gittin 9a).

I am more reserved than he was , and generally do not characterize my feelings in such a way. However, sometimes I am tempted to make an exception, such as when listening to, and reading the analysis linked at the beginning of this post.

Is it Dangerous to Kiss a Mezuzah ?

2007-08-10T13:32:00.000-04:00

The Rambam in the sixth chapter of Hilchos Mezuzah writes :

Whenever a person enters or leaves his home, he will encounter the unity of Hashem's Name. He will then be reminded of his love for Him, and will be awakened from his slumber and the error of being absorbed in trivial activities. He will then know that only knowledge of Hashem is permanent, and will immediately return to his own awareness, and follow the paths of the upright...

I assume that the basis of the custom to kiss the mezuzah(I would appreciate any sources * regarding this) is to bring to awareness thoughts and feelings, such as those described by the Rambam.

The following is a link about one Conservative rabbi's ruling, which recommended not kissing the mezuzah, out of concerns of spreading infectious disease. Now, were the level of concern of a health hazard to reach a serious threshold, I assume Orthodox poskim would, as well, advise against kissing a mezuzah and categorize the act as "shachiach hezeika".

Practically, I don't know to what extent this ruling will be followed by Conservative Jews who have been observing the custom to kiss the Mezuzah.

* Note: See gemera Avodah Zarah 11a, as noted in comments.

The Challenge of a Happy Haredi II (Concert Ban)

2007-08-09T13:51:00.000-04:00

There is a good article by Larry Gordon in the Five Towns Jewish Times which offers clarification on the Israeli/Jerusalem Concert Ban. As always, please be respectful of Gedolie Torah if you are commenting here.

Slifkin in the Jewish Press II

2007-08-09T01:27:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Dovid Kornreich writes in a letter to the Jewish Press:

But why are they challenged in the first place? Why is their faith in the sages’ mastery of all levels of reality so frail and their faith in science so strong? Believe me, I also wonder how to reconcile many fantastic statements of Chazal with empirical reality. The problems are quite perplexing, but they don’t challenge my faith…I humbly submit that it is completely counterproductive, in an attempt to strengthen faith, for Rabbi Slifkin to cater to a mindset (one perhaps shared by Rabbi Slifkin himself) that cannot accept, in principle,the real existence of a supernatural reality.

As I wrote previously(see comments to this post), the general question of how to approach tensions between Science and Chazal involves both a theological and an educational question. From a theological standpoint, there is a fundamental dispute whether the approach of the Rambam, his son Rav Avroham, and Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch on Science and Chazal issues is kefirah, heresy. While one can try to limit the application of R Avroham ben Harambam sources, I think that the intellectually honest thing to do, is to at least admit that there was a significant change of public policy in the haredi world, and/or that even amongst charedi gedolim, there are significant differences whether such is kefirah(in cases when R Avroham ben Harambam may be applied).

As Rabbi Kornreich points out, at some point, there is a need to accept supernatural reality. As indicated below in the Rambam's teshuva quoted by the Alter of Kelm, "wherever we find this impossible, we will concede that the Torah matter belongs to the meta-rational". Where to draw the line is a separate subject.

I quote from the Alter of Kelm:

There is really nothing new. Those who know what Beis HaTalmud is all about understand its lofty stature; those who do not will speak of it in the darkest terms. We are aware of the preciousness of the Rambams Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For the Perplexed). In his Introduction to the same, and in his responsa, Rambam writes that his work will likely not help a thousand fools and it might even worsen matters for them. Yet, he writes, these thousand must give way to the single individual who lives as the more complete image of what Man should be, and who will be helped to live more completely by studying the Guide. So many people who did not fathom the positions of the Rambam distanced and banned those who supported his works! Yet truth, in the end, will prevail. This alone should quiet the complaints against us.

I will tell you this. I can point to an idea in one of Rambams responsa that is a central support of our yeshiva . He writes: With all our might we will attempt to bring Torah matters in synch with rational thought. Wherever we find this impossible, we will concede that the Torah matter belongs to the meta-rational. I have seen amongst Torah personalities those whose goal is to take all of Torah past and future and turn it into the inexplicable. They wish for everything to be foreign to rational thought. Rambam mocks them, and rejects them.

Those who know what our yeshiva is about know that we strive to allow Torah to appeal to reason, so that it can be well established within peoples hearts. This is particularly important for young people, the young of our generation, so that proper belief and attitudes become well-seated within them, with the help of G-d. One can easily understand how important this is. We endeavor to do the same even in the study of Gemara and its commentaries. I have written hurriedly, but it will suffice for the discerning.

From an educational standpoint, one can differ whether giving a student an alternative that the Rambam and Rav Hirsch accepted, is indeed, ultimately, helpful to them. Some feel, as quoted below from Rav Aryeh Carmell, that it is helpful. Indeed, people have been helped by that approach. It can allow a person to move on, and grow in emunah, although admittedly, it can be abused and be the beginning of a slippery slope.

Rabbi Carmell writes:

As the centuries progress we discover a curious fact. As modern science becomes more and more soundly established and more discrepancies appear between the words of our Sages and modern science, one would have thought more and more recourse would be had to Rambam’s principle — that the words of our Sages in aggada, are not always expected to be in accord with the facts.

But in fact the contrary is true. Rambam’s principle is ignored, for the most part it is not even known. A good deal of Orthodox education at the present time teaches that whatever the Talmudical Sages assert, in halacha and in aggada, is literally and factually true, and that it is part of our duty as Jews to believe this. There is no doubt that this viewpoint is attractive. It is simpler, and if discrepancies do appear, they can usually be dealt with by assuming that “nature has changed.”

The difficulty is that maintaining this viewpoint depends on the ability of the educators to isolate their students from all contact with modern science. In the world in which we live, it seems less and less likely that this will be successful. Rav S.R. Hirsch, who opened the secular world to the Orthodox Jew, dealt with this very question in 1876. He came down strongly on the side of Rambam and Rav Avraham his son. He rejected the other, seemingly more "religious” viewpoint, because of the disaster he foresaw when the student eventually realizes that he has been misled.

We may be standing before this problem today, when whoever has a cell phone has mmediate access to modern science.

Two final points:

As I pointed out in the previous post and comments, this is not a carte blanche endorsement of everything said by Rabbi Slifkin. The focus of this post is a particular shittah in the Rishonim, which although has recently become associated with Rabbi Slifkin becuause of the controversy(thus the title of this post and its predecessor), has been around for centuries. This post is aimed at the reader who thinks with nuance and can appreciate the distinction.

Lastly, I think that especially those who do allow Rav Avroham ben Harambam's et al opinion on Science and Chazal issues as a valid possibility, need to stress a belief in the greatness of Chazal as links in the Mesorah, and that there does exist reality which can not be perceived by our five senses.

Some try to accomplish primarily the former of these two aims by saying "zogt de heileger gemera", or "de heilge Rambam". This is not new, and has a pedigree for example, in the phrase " devarav hakedoshim". Whether one does this practice or not(I've had roshie yeshivah who did not), educators need to get across to students in our day and age the concept of chazal's transcendence, integrity, and their role as transmitters of the mesorah.

Jewish Observer on Concerts

2007-08-05T04:25:00.001-04:00

Rabbi Yosef C. Golding, who has been involved in JEP recordings and Suki and Ding productions, wrote an article about improvements that he felt needed to be made in both Jewish Music recordings and live events. Writing in the May, 2007 issue of the Jewish Observer, he has the following suggestions for the Jewish Music industry(he thanks Yisroel Lamm and Abie Rotenberg for constructive comments):

We urge the talented songwriters, perfomers, and producers to understand what a great impact they can have upon Klal Yisrael and we point out to them that they have an opportunity to use their music, regardless of genre, for a greater good.

The performer should not merely prance around on stage for an hour, mindlessly belting out tune after tune... To enhance the music, there should be dialogue, peirsush hamillim, a story, chizuk, inspiration, a plea for a greater connection to the Almighty through music, ...and we must be able to say wholeheartedly, tavo alav beracha--may he receive Divine blessings--for doing so...even if it isn't always the kind of music that you and I appreciate.

An evening of Jewish music should reinforce within the audience that music is a gift from Hashem with the potential to inspire the appropriate emotion of the movement, whether simcha shel mitzva, simchas hachaim, or longing to be closer to Hashem, or to return to Yerushalayim...and that the evening was well spent spiritually. Jewish music is a calling, not merely a way to make a living.

If everyone involved made it paramount that their audiences be uplifted overall...or better yet, if the audiences demanded that performers use their talents for that goal...it would go a long way towards bringing the true shiras Levi'im closer to realization.

I would note that the article wasn't discussing the issue of men and women attending the same concert in same or separate sections, nor was it discussing the situation of Israel specifically, in which the Jewish Observer's parent organization would, obviously, defer to Israeli gedolim. What the article did suggest, in consultation with contributors to the Jewish Music scene, were ways in which Jewish Music recordings and concerts(at least in America) could be improved.

In any event, the part that most impressed me was, " and we must be able to say wholeheartedly, tavo alav beracha--may he receive Divine blessings--for doing so...even if it isn't always the kind of music that you and I appreciate". Halevai, we should see more such tolerance, where the Haredi world acknowledges that some people need a different derech, and that not everyone is cut out of the same cloth!

on bans and beliefs - some questions on your reaction

2007-08-03T12:34:00.001-04:00

Is there anyone out there who can say in all honesty that they will no longer attend a Jewish music concert because of the ban placed by gedolei yisrael? If such a person exists, I have a follow-up question: m'ikara mai ka'savar ul'b'sof mai ka'savar - what positive (or neutral) value did you attach to the concerts which originally made you attend, and how has the ban changed your view of the same experience? My chakira is: did you previously find the concert experience a mix of good/bad and felt the good outweighed the bad, but now the gedolim have changed your mind; did you previously think the experience was positive and now see all the negatives; do you still feel the Jewish concert experience is positive but are simply mevateil your da'as to that of gedolim?

For those who identify as chareidi and still will attend concerts, question: is this because you asked a shayla to your chareidi rav who openly took a position that the advice of these gedolim could be ignored, or you on your own made a decision to ignore their advice? If the latter is true, do you think ignoring the advice of gedolim based on your own assessment is consistant with the chareidi vision of da'as torah?

(Note: just to clarify in response to comments - by "chareidi" I simply mean those of you who otherwise believe the advice of gedolim in all areas should be unquestioningly followed.)

The Challenge of a Happy Haredi

2007-08-01T17:07:00.000-04:00

The Rabbinic Ban on the concert in Israel is starting to make its rounds in the blogosphere, and I would like to share some thoughts on both the issue of Jewish music concerts in general, as well as on the meta-issue of satisfaction with Haredi life.

Personally, I am an avid fan of Jewish music, and I enjoy attending these concerts from time to time. I think that on a whole, they are a simple, kosher pleasure. I do agree that there can be issues and/or grounds for improvement, whether intermingling of genders that may occur at the events, hero-worship of performers, or the secular nature of the music.

On the positive side, I would note that at a recent concert that I attended, one performer, who is a Ben Torah, performed in a very aidel(refined) manner. So, while people are welcome to criticize the Jewish Music industry, I would appreciate if some nuance is used in this forum, and also, if names of singers are not mentioned.

The Jewish Observer recently published an article, which as noted in the magazine, had input from two of the biggest names in the Jewish Music industry. While the author strongly called for an increase in the "Jewish" aspect in these concerts, to his credit, he recognized that people are on different levels. He thus concluded that if improvement occurs, even those who don't attend concerts on principle, need to be able to give a genuine "yasher koach" for the improvements made.

In practice, the Israeli ban is not relevant to many people. If one is Modern-Orthodox, these issues are not on the radar screen. In the American haredi world, no one is banning concerts. In fact, a prominent haredi Rav, recently recommended that an older, single, relative of mine attend Jewish music concerts(where there was separate seating), because he felt that it was important for her happiness.

Indeed, at Jewish music concerts, I often notice groups from Ohel Family Home attending these events; once, I saw an "out of town" eighth grade class with their rebbeim as well. I once took a recent baal teshuva whom I was acquainted with, who was alienated from his family, to a Hasc concert, and he enjoyed the evening, even though he never experienced Jewish music before. For some people, these events are, therefore, important.

I would also note that the Israeli Haredi world does have some type of Simchos Bais Hashovea concerts, although these are subject to Rabbinical oversight.

To shift to meta-issues of understanding the Israeli Haredi world, most secular, or non-Haredi perspectives would emphasize the arguable difficulties in Haredi life, as viewed by an outsider.

For example, the following was a description by Micha Odenheimer in Foreign Policy:

In Hebrew, ultra-Orthodox Jews are called haredim, which translates as “tremulous” or “fearful” and reflects the community’s claim to represent the last segment of Jewry whose behavior and commitment are centered in awe and reverence to God. It is an apt name in another sense, because fear of the relentless assimilative power of modernity has shaped ultra-Orthodoxy’s ideology and survival strategy since its inception. Ultra-Orthodoxy began in the early 1800s, when the secular humanism of the Enlightenment started to penetrate into the Jewish population centers of Eastern Europe. Key rabbinical leaders—revered by the faithful as towering scholar-saints—responded to the challenge by erecting a virtual firewall that they hoped would keep their flock from straying. Secular learning was banned, as were innovations of theology, practice, and style that were seen as reflecting modern sensibilities.

After the Holocaust, the shattered remnants of ultra-Orthodoxy that regrouped in the state of Israel were faced with the triumph of secular Zionism and the appeal of the new kind of Jewish identity it offered. In response, Israel’s haredim (America’s largely followed suit) created a religious culture more insular and controlled than had ever existed in Jewish history. A single kind of personality—the preternaturally pious, diligent, and ascetic Torah scholar—became the ideal that everyone was meant to emulate. Television and movies were banned, and the pursuit of higher education, unless strictly related to making a living, was frowned upon. So was internal debate and criticism, which could subvert the authority and ideology holding the nearly exterminated community together in the face of what it perceived as existential dangers.

As noted above, the Foreign Policy description is written from a secular perspective, and does not focus on an appreciation of the Torah accomplishments of the Israeli and American Haredi world. Having said that, would you agree with the above, that, " Israel’s haredim (America’s largely followed suit) created a religious culture more insular and controlled than had ever existed in Jewish history" ?

What do you predict as the future of such a trend? I would say that the future is a mixed bag; for example, Mishpacha Magazine, to my suprise, has advertised Lander College.

In addition, as I noted above, many(certainly not all) Israeli haredim are happy in their lifestyle, and accept as a package deal, Rabbinic Bans. It is also true that "the grass is greener on the other sides", and that some Modern Orthodox recognize the strength of haredim

On a personal note, I sympathize with anyone caught in between various segments of religious world, whether in Lubavitch, Religious Zionist world , or the Haredi world. This was poignantly brought out by Rav Nosson Kaminetsy's speech which I attended in Boro Park. While Rav Nosson was obviously pained by the ban on his book, he noted that his relationship with Rav Elyashiv had, ironically, become stronger after the ban, and he quoted from an unpublished work of his, that he would not dream of disobeying Rav Elyashiv, "whom he loves, nay adores".

While I do not have the relationship that Rav Nosson Kaminetsky has, I can say that I have met(as part of a group) some of the signatories of the ban, including Rav Elyashiv, Rav Sheinberg, the Gererer Rebbe, and Rav Shtienman. As is obvious from the pictures I have from some of the meetings, they gave me their full attention, and it was certainly an inspiring experience.

Similarly, a rabbi in the Centrist world whom I met at an event, echoed these feelings, and he told me that while he did not necessarily follow Rav Elyashiv as a final authority, he had met, and of course, respected Rav Elyashiv.

Comments on the concert ban are welcome, pro or con, but please be respectful, and focus on ideas, not people.

Slifkin in the Jewish Press

2007-08-01T14:52:00.000-04:00

I do not agree with everything that Rabbi Slifkin writes, but neither do I think that he is automatically wrong on each issue either.

I did not fully read Challenge of Creation, although I browsed through it last year at the book launching held at Young Israel of Kew Garden Hills. I am therefore not in the position to critique Challenge of Creation any more than a Harry Potter-challenged reader can comment on the eye color of Albus Dumbledore or on other Harry Potter trivia. I imagine, though, that Rabbi Slifkin would be on firmer, although fiercely controversial ground in the Sacred Monster book, although obviously, I have not seen that, as of yet, either.

I note that Rabbi Yehuda(Leo) Levi has written, "in this particular book, the author has managed to avoid the many pitfalls awaiting anyone treating the intersection between science and Torah.” As always, consult with your local Orthodox Rabbi if in doubt on the halachic appropriateness of a particular book.

I think, though, that in the presentation quoted below, Rabbi Slifkin is both intellectually open and respectful, both to the opposing approach, as well as to the Torah authorities who disagree with him:

The final approach to these types of issues takes a different line. There are authorities who state that although the sages of the Talmud were towering in their Torah scholarship, their knowledge of the natural world was not something received at Har Sinai. When it came to science, they accepted the reports of the experts of their era, which included information that we now know to be false.

For example, the Gemara describes a mouse that, instead of being born from parent mice, grows from dirt. This was a prevalent belief in the ancient world, but modern science firmly rejects the notion that a mouse could grow from dirt. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that since the naturalists of Talmudic times reported of such creatures, the sages of the Talmud had no reason not to rely on these experts. Acknowledging that no such mouse exists is no reason to view the Talmudic sages with any less respect.

It is this approach that was recently branded as heresy by numerous distinguished rabbinic authorities in the haredi world. Their position is that every single statement in the Talmud must be understood as either received from Sinai or otherwise divinely inspired, even statements about the natural world. Accordingly, they would state that if the Talmud describes a mouse that grows from dirt, such a creature must indeed exist.

Be that as it may, I am writing for those communities whose rabbinic leaders follow the position of Rambam, Rav Hirsch and scores of other Rishonim and Acharonim over the ages who took the rationalist approach that Chazal were not infallible on scientific matters....

There are those who acknowledge that this rationalist approach has legitimate roots from a historical perspective but nevertheless oppose it on the grounds that it could be dangerous. They fear that if we teach our students that Chazal could err in some matters, they might start questioning Chazal on everything.

I do not discount these concerns, but it is clear to me that, for the communities to which my book is targeted, the dangers in the other direction are even greater. People who grow up in a world where there is exposure to modern science and popular culture might enjoy reading Rowling or Tolkien, but they know these monsters are fictitious. When they encounter statements in the Talmud or Midrash that run counter to their knowledge of the natural world, they are challenged in their faith. If their rabbinic leaders dismiss their questions or, worse, chastise them for asking, their difficulties become a crisis.

For such people, learning that the great Torah authorities of history did not see any need to accept Talmudic statements of science as being infallible is a great reassurance, and can be a lifeline for someone whose emunah is drowning. Precisely that approach which causes a crisis in rabbinic authority for some, rescues rabbinic authority for others.

Orthodox Judaism 2017 and Off the Derech Redux

2007-07-26T23:09:00.000-04:00

Steve Savitsky at OU Radio has an interesting new series, "Orthodox Judaism 2017", which aims to address challenges and opportunities relevant to the future of Orthodox Judaism in the coming decade. He plans on interviewing people from different segments of the Jewish Community, whether modern or more Yeshivish.

I believe there is merit to such an open and diverse approach that includes trying to learn from different people. I think that it would be great if the Yeshivah World could show a similar openness, even if it would be a modified form, on it's own terms. Perhaps someone could come up with creative ideas as to how that could work in the Yeshivah world(part of the difficulty in the latter's being open to hearing multiple approaches relates to different limits of elu v'elu, but there are also some practical challanges that come with a diverse community makeup).

In the first interview Rabbi Michael Broyde identifies three levels of sets challenges facing the Orthodox community in the coming decade(one should listen to the actual interview, to get the full picture):

A) Social challenge involved in the decline of the Jewish community structure through intermarriage. More directly, the Orthodox community, despite it's growth, is affected by people defecting, even in insular Chasidic community.

B) Intellectual challenges that differ with each generation.

C) Inter-Orthodox schism, the concern that we possible could reach a point where shomrie Torah Umitzvos can not present a united front on certain issues, where we should be able to come together on.

Rabbi Broyde is concerned that any schism should not reach the level of the schism in Israel, where a united Orthodox front does not exist. Rabbi Broyde notes that "that which unites us is much greater than that which divides us", and that there already is cooperation within Orthodoxy, but that we need to build, publicly, on the behind-the-scenes type of cooperation already existing.

On the intellectual issue, Rabbi Broyde says:

One has to always be wary about fighting the wrong war, so to speak. The challenges posed by modernity to those who are of faith don't remain constant. The grand challenge to Orthodoxy 100 years ago which was the Documentary Hypothesis simply is unimportant in our time. Nobody leaves Orthodox Judaism over multiple authorship of the Torah, at least that's my sense.

But for example, as the Slifkin matter showed, this basic question of the compatibility of Torah with modern science, has proven to be an extraordinary important issue, and it's an issue that didn't strike a particular generation as crucial, but I think in our generation, this will prove a crucial issue. People will leave over the sense[i.e., their perception] that Torah is incompatible with modern science.

A different view, downplaying the Torah and Science issue, was presented in a Jerusalem Post article on the Slifkin controversy by Matthew Wagner:

The educator at Machon Lev agrees that answers should be provided, but believes the apparent contradiction between science and religion is not a burning issue for most religious youth.

"A century ago the contradiction destroyed the spirituality of thousands of Jews. But today there are many religious scientists and professors who have refuted supposed inconsistencies.
"I think what truly bothers contemporary religious youth is a much more personal, existential question. The real thinkers are concerned with why they were put on this earth and what they are supposed to do here."

I think the importance of Science and Torah, and intellectual issues in general, varies with the person.

More generally, and to refer to the Machon Lev educator's historical comparison, the question facing researchers into "Off the Derech" is how better, if at all, is today's Orthodox society than the previous European one. From a social perspective, based on issues like poverty and community structure, one might say that we are in a better position than the milieu of vulnerability of say, the 19th Century Volozhin Yeshivah, which had Haskalah activity within its walls (see Rabbi Dr. JJ Schacter's, " Haskalah, Secular Studies, and the Close of the Yeshivah of Volozhin in 1892" in Torah Umaddah Journal).

There were always defectors from even the most insular Orthodox communities. Dr. Marvin Schik has written on Hella Winston's Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels , that "there are more than a handful of hassidim who have left the fold. This phenomenon was evident in European societies that were far more closed than America's is…"

I will add this thought from a quotation mentioned in an Avodah posting by Rabbi Bechhofer, which people will agree or disagree with based on their hashkafa(see thread there):

…the time is ripening for a new Haskalah movement to make new inroads precisely *because* our contemporary Charedi milieu is *not* emulating German Orthodoxy, but Eastern European Orthodoxy. V'hudavar pashut.

Also on the topic is Dr. Aharon Hersh Fried's Hakirah article "Are Our Children Too Worldly", where he addresses how strong and impermeable the fences built today are, and how to address the intellectual issues that seep through the fences of even an insular chasidic community.

From the essay:

The fences are in any case not impermeable, and building them higher and thicker will not help.

Gerry Albarelli is a non-Jew who taught “English” (i.e. secular studies) at the Satmar cheder in Williamsburg for five years and wrote a book about his experiences. In the book, Albarelli talks about his relationship with Mendy, the fifteen-year-old brother of a boy he had undertaken to tutor at home. Mendy would come home from yeshivah, often join in the tutorial sessions meant for his younger brother, and always insist on walking the teacher to the subway. Albarelli relates:

Then there are the questions that Mendy asks, walking me to the subway, week after week. He asks these questions as though everything depended on the answers:

“How they know the weather?” “What means geology?” “Who was Con Edison?” “Thomas,” I say, “Thomas Edison.” “No,” he insists, politely embarrassed by my ignorance. “Con, Con Edison.” We’re standing across from the elevated train. “Teacher,” he says, one day, “why is it we know from the Torah that the earth is five thousand years old but the museum have bones that are a million years?” “Oh. That’s a good question,” I say. “You should think about that question for a long time.”

Dr. Fried concludes,

If such questions come to children while they are in closed and protected communities, surely they will come to them when, as they must, they will one day step outside those communities. The reality is that you cannot forever keep children fenced in, and if so, you must provide them with the means to protect themselves in the future.

He notes in a footnote that:

Communities faced with these breaches in their walls usually respond by rededicating themselves even more zealously to building still higher and thicker walls. It does not work. They need to begin thinking about other measures that might work better. Perhaps they should be looking at educational measures.

Scare in Midtown Manhattan

2007-07-18T19:14:00.000-04:00

I was in the Midtown Manhattan area today, and the scene was confusion. Apparently, a steam explosion near Grand Central Station had rocked buildings in the area. People were gathered outside buildings, and police were shouting at bystanders to move on, as emergency vehicles rushed to the area. There was a great plume of smoke rising to the sky. Hopefully, there were no people seriously injured.

I stood for a while watching reporters; I was standing next to an Associated Press reporter who was making arrangements to pick up someone's camera, apparently to use in a future story. Another reporter was taking pictures of the pictures taken with someone's cell phone. I decided to head home, especially as there might be an issue with the air quality.

Baruch Hashem, it was not terrorist related. Nevertheless it was a scare. As Lipa says, "ah be me leibt".

As the blogosphere returns to business as usual(actually, it never stopped), I am reminded that as important and vexing as issues we speak of are, perspective can decrease their intensity.

Unity and Individuality

2007-07-17T21:51:00.000-04:00

I once heard a story about a couple that was just married under the chuppah. The Rabbi had blessed, or advised them that "they need to become one" in order to live a happy, Jewish life together. Right then and there, they began to argue with each other over which one they should become, "he meant that you should become me !", etc.

One of the challanges inherent in unity is to maintain individual identity.

I quote Rabbi Emanuel Feldman:

Granted, there are differences in outlook and perspective between the MO and the YO, and these should not be minimized or disregarded. MO, for example, is not fearful that engagement with the outside world will somehow dilute its Jewishness; but YO is convinced that such engagement, beyond what is unavoidable, will inevitably result in such dilution, and is thus very cautious about crossing certain boundary lines...Only the naïve would expect that these and other differences can be airbrushed away. Nevertheless, it would be a serious dereliction of our duties as Jews if either group, busily tending its unique garden, diverted its eyes from the parlous facts of contemporary Jewish life.

Rabbi Avi Shafran writes as well:

Despite the different paths of principle we may tread, the good will need not be—and, baruch Hashem, rarely is—left behind. That said, we must all work to ensure that it never is—that, despite our undeniable diversity, the unity born of ahavas Yisrael continues to envelop us all.

Also worthwhile, is this article by Rabbi Wein, described as "a most personal article and reflects my emotions and hopes about my beloved Jewish people", as well as a link to Moshiach's Hat.

Let us hope for the time when the entire month of Av will be one of happiness!

new lows in jewish hagiography

2007-07-12T12:22:00.000-04:00

Other blogs have circulated the story of R’ Chaim Kanievsky shli”ta knowing how many times the name Moshe appears in the Torah while a computer database miscounted. But, protested many, R’ Chaim’s gabai said no such story every happened! The publisher of the story I think in answering this question establishes a a new low in Jewish hagiography.

“Now, while it may very well be true that the story never happened, it certainly could have.”

Lots of things could happen, but reporting these possible happenings as fact usually crosses some line of journalistic ethics. Baruch recently wrote regarding gedolim biographies, “I therefore think that we should simply accept the genre for what it is: a slice of reality which is meant to inspire.” If delivering a well trimmed slice instead of a broader picture that more accurately captures a person's life is acceptable in the name providing inspiration, why not go to the next nevel and dispense with "reality" altogether - if the possible (i.e. fiction) serves to inspire better than the actual (i.e. fact), who are we to quibble over such minor distinctions? But the writer is not done, and this week reports a new story in the same of R' Chaim's son:

But then, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “You probably want to hear a peledikeh story. I’ll tell you one that happens daily. Every day, when he finishes eating his meal, my father [R’ Chaim Kanievsky] asks my mother which brocha acharona to make, because he doesn’t know what he ate!”

V’kan ha'tam shoel: if R’ Chaim does not know what he is eating, why does he ask about the bracha achrona and NOT THE BRACHA RISHONA?

I guess I will have to wait for next week’s article to find out.

Daas Baalei Batim

2007-07-10T13:19:00.000-04:00

Rav Hershel Schachter humorously writes:

In fact, in Lithuanian yeshivas there was such an exaggerated disdain for baalei batim, the “story” went around about two elderly gentlemen – baalei batim of course – who were both hard of hearing and made up to learn gemorrah together. One was using a gemorrah Eruvin while the other was using an Erchin. The chavrusa went very well, until they reached the forty-third daf, when one was already making a siyum on the smaller volume (Erchin), and the other still had another seventy blat to go!

This exaggerated attitude is the basis of the very fundamental philosophical question that bothered many of the Lithuanian yeshiva bochurim: why did the Borei Olam create baalei batim at all? We know that he didn’t create anything that has no purpose!?

Needless to say, all of these exaggerations are ridiculous. The Sema never meant to say that the sechel of baalei batim is always the opposite from sechel haTorah. A layman who is not familiar with the intricacies of physics or biology will often be mistaken if he will apply common sense to those disciplines; and the same is true of the self-contained discipline of Torah. But very often we will use common sense in establishing halacha! The Talmud tells us that by way of sevorah we can establish a din de’oaraisa!

I found R. Schachter's approach very satisfying. Our chachamim say, who is wise, he who learns from every person... If one says that there is wisdom amongst the nations, believe him. The Rambam says, accept the truth from whomever states it. There are other statements as well, showing that our sages appreciated all knowledge.

How, then, are we to understand the statement that daas bale batim is antithetical to daas Torah ? I belive that stories along this line must be taken with a grain of salt. It is true that a rosh yeshiva may eschew a superficial, "balebatish" explanation, which on the surface answers a question neatly, but comes without the proper, deeper thought-process that a lamdan must develop, the latter requiring perseverance and mental energy. So some balabtishe type of thinking may be the opposite of daas torah. But certainly not all. Also, historically, the connotation of a "baal habaas" may have connoted someone who was anti-Torah(perhaps like the term "am haaretz" in times of chazal), as opposed to just meaning a "layperson".

I recall reading an obituary in the Jewish Observer about Rabbi Moshe Sherer, where a Rosh Yeshiva praised his ideas, even if they were not followed in the end as a matter of public policy. I would therefore advise taking these stories with a grain of salt(like any other strange story), and understand them to mean , that by examining the thought process of Bale Batim, one can, at times discern a superficial approach to gemera learning or to Torah thought, and use that to contrast such an approach with a deeper, analytical one.

I believe that these stories, if told simplistically without trying to understand them or the greatness of their subject's , do harm to the concept of daas Torah and k'vod chachamim. In general, if I hear a strange story about a gadol, I try to understand it in context of other facets of a gadol's personality and of Torah. I quoted in Stories with Educational Lessons, how Rav Shlomo Zalman Aeurbach did not accept a simplistic, strange sounding story he had heard regarding Rav Akivah Eiger.

Indeed, respect for Torah wisdom is enhanced by emphasizing that the wisdom which exists in all mankind can enhance our understanding of Torah, and that our chachamim were open to learning from all people.

Intra-Orthodox Skirmishes, The Three-Weeks, and Blogs

2007-07-04T18:30:00.000-04:00

Three comments on a recent Hirhurim thread:

" I have been in both MO and chareidi institutions. I have never heard anyone in a chareidi institution talk about any MO individual or rabbi in the way MO individuals talk about chareidim. The chareidi may say that the MO act in ways that are non-halachic or that a MO rabbi does not know how to learn - but these things have been said about chareidi rabbis too.

I have been witness to adhominem and vile attacks on chareidim from lay leaders, educators and the rabbis. I have even heard the following statemnt from a MO educator - "I hate, hate, hate chareidim" - and noone in the vicinity protested. I've learned about bigotry and antisemitism from the MO. Take this as what you will but I'd rather hang out with chareidim who had issues with one or two of our leaders than a population who hates a broad group of people for no reason."

---

"In my 4 years in a MO high school and 5 years in YU, I can't recall ever hearing someone MO say anything bad about Chareidim. Ever.

The only thing I can think of is when someone said that he doesn't think that people in other yeshivos know how to learn. One guy said one thing, once, and it isn't particularly bad. And everyone else thought that he was crazy.

My experience in the Charedi world is that the word "Modern" is equivalent to "barely frum" but that might just be an issue of terminology. "

---

"So what's the lesson here? Each group feels that the other hates them?"

I think that the lesson is that are fair and reasonable people in both groups whom one can talk to, as well as the fact that when you have human beings involved in dispute, there will be indiscretions on both sides. Groups are no different than individuals that have "fights", whether in marriage or in friendships.

If one is involved in a "fight", at least the machalokes should be as civil as possible. Again, on the individual level, I think that Rav Pam zt'l said that couples going through a divorce should remember the bercahos which were directed at them during the Sheva Berachos and be amicable as possible, under the circumstances. One might say the same regarding ideological disputes.

Regarding intemperate remarks made on both sides, I think that we should distinguish between what I would call "internal-talk" or "locker-room talk" ("Mikvah-talk" ?) whose content may include flippant, off-the- cuff remarks that aren't nuanced, versus actual strident language and speech, which sometimes appear in polemics. As an example of the first type, boys(or men) might talk amongst themselves that women have a tendency to "blabber on the phone", and there might be a reverse type of comment from the other gender(I've heard that as well !). While that might not be nuanced, sensitive, or totally fair, I would not call it "vitriolic", if one says "blabber" instead of "effusive" or "demonstrative".

To bring a personal example of this in intra-Orthodox matters, I remember a Centrist person saying something, that while it could be construed as highlighting the strengths of his own group, could also be understood as stereotyping people in the Yeshivah World. I, personally, thought that statement in question was unfair and a stereotype, and should therefore not have been said, but I understood the remark in the context of the communication that was taking place, which was one aimed at highlighting the strengths of his own group, to his own audience.

In fact, this person had previously spoken about appreciating the positive in all groups, and that was what convinced me to introduce myself to him months later, when I met him at a different event. We had a interesting, enlightening, and pleasant conversation, but I would never have thought to do that, had I had not been convinced that he was genuinely respectful of all groups, and that he would not look down at me, as being a stereotype of the "other group".

On the other hand, there is also the category of actual strident language that goes beyond "internal-talk". One might argue that the Right-Wing, on the account of defending Torah principles, may be inherently more "at risk" for using intemperate language(which they believe to be justified, in order to defend a certain understanding of Torah). One should point out that parts of the Right, have learned from experience, and have become more nuanced and sensitive in some of their public communications. To the extent that this is true, we should recognize that as a positive happening, instead of only focusing on a laundry list of past, painful indiscretions.

On the other hand, the more modern group, is also human, and when attacked may also "get carried away", and respond in kind, perhaps months or years afterwards. I've heard a remark where a person from the Left, in order to defend his ideology, was "carried away" and said something which was clearly out of line, and which I felt deserved an apology and retraction. In the case I'm thinking about, however, I still thought to myself at the time, that the person making the remark was basically a decent person, but got "carried away".

Is the solution to have open communication between groups? Should differences be brought into the open, or be papered over? I would say, it depends. Sometimes, as in personal relationships, achdus(unity) is indeed best served by bringing up differences, and talking things through. On the other hand, if both sides don't make a concerted effort to display good-will, dialogues can turn into debates, and in such cases, achdus would be better served by not focusing on the differences. I suppose it depends on the situation, and on the people involved.

I will conclude that if a person or group takes the "high-road" when attacked, and resists the urge the respond in kind, they(or the group) come out better, both objectively, as well as in the eyes of the public.

I would also appreciate if on this thread, people keep things as general as possible, and do not bring up names, as I do not want it to, ironically, turn into a contest regarding which side made greater indiscretions.

How to Be a Zealot

2007-07-03T19:38:00.000-04:00

A few sources discussing zealotry:

Rabbi Berel Wein writes on this week's Parsha:

Pinchas and his behavior become the exception and not the rule in Jewish life and tradition. Zealotry is a very difficult characteristic to gauge correctly. How much are personal quirks involved in such zealous behavior? Jewish history and society is littered by the victims of religious zealotry who were felled by personal attacks clothed in the guise of religious piety and zealotry.

The zealot often covers his own weaknesses and self-doubt by attacking others. That is why the people of Israel questioned the motives of Pinchas in killing Zimri. Because of this, it is obvious that only God, so to speak, could save Pinchas from unwarranted criticism and public disapproval. But in so doing, God, again so to speak, warns us of the dangers of zealotry. He will not step in again to rescue the zealot from public and historical disapproval.

The Mesilas Yesharim in the chapter on Chasidus discusses that the motivation of zealotry originates from love of Hashem :

The third branch of the love of God is jealously - being jealous for the Holy One's Name, hating His enemies and striving to humble them as much as possible so that the service of the Blessed One will be done and His honor magnified. ….It is evident that just as one who loves his friend will not tolerate his being beaten or insulted, but will certainly rise to his defense, so one who loves the Name of the Blessed One will not be able to abide the desecration of His Name (G-d forbid) and the transgression of His mitzvoth. …This is the intensity of the love that one who truly loves his Creator should be able to display. As it is said (Psalms 97:10), "Those who love God hate evil."

Also related(further in the perek):

The true motivation, which is common to Saints, who have exerted themselves and persevered to acquire it, is to serve solely for the purpose of magnifying and extending the honor of the Master of Blessed Name. One will serve for this end only after he has grown strong in love for the Blessed One, and longs and lusts for the magnification of His honor, and is pained by anything which detracts from it. He will hope that he is at least doing his part towards magnifying the honor of the Blessed One and he will wish that all others possessed this aspiration. The shortcomings of others in this respect will pain and grieve him, not to speak of his own unintentional and accidental lapses and those resulting from his natural weakness, which makes it difficult for him to constantly protect himself against sin, as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 7:20), "A man is not righteous in the land, who will do good and not sin."

And finally, Rabbi Leff writes:

Rabbi Chaim Brisker pointed out that there are two types of zealots - one praiseworthy and one not. They can be compared to a housewife and a cat. The housewife and the cat both want to rid the the house of mice. There is only one difference: the housewife hopes there will never be another mouse to eliminate; the cat is hopeful that there will be many more mice.

Before we are zealous to attack the evils of the world, let us make sure that we are acting as housewives not as cats, so that we can merit through our ways of pleasantness to attract our estranged brothers to Torah and mitzvos.

Stories with Educational Lessons

2007-06-18T14:14:00.000-04:00

There is a famous story told of Netziv to encourage students to reach their full potential. The way I heard it, the Netziv said at a seudos hodaah, that as a young boy, he overheard his parents having given up on him as ever amounting to a talmid chachom, and were therefore going to teach him a trade. He then became serious, and later in life reflected that had he not published his Seforim and instead learned a trade, Hashem would have demanded from him the Seforim that he never would have written, and he was therefore thankful for fulfilling his obligation.

Rabbi Bechhofer criticizes this story as having:

disastrous implication is that "not gifted students" should never opt for a career track, because perhaps they can be Gedolim, just like the Netziv. It is the most anti-TIDE story I know, but even more so, enough to impose an eternal guilt trip on so many people who would actually do well to seek a profession and be neheneh me'yegi'a kapeihem.

I exchanged e-mails yesterday with Rabbi Bechhofer and some other people, and I see the point of Rabbi Bechhofer's criticism. I agree that we should look for better stories that convey the point of a person reaching his full potential, and/or that illustrate that people are not always aware what that potential actually is.

However, a rebbe might choose to relate that story(I've heard the story a few times in schmoozen). In such cases, the person telling the story should be put it into context of positive statements regarding TIDE, or chanoch l'naar al pi darko.

In general as well, there are many points that a smart mechanech or parent would do well to put in context, and give some nuance to the lesson, if he or she truly wants to help a child develop, instead of giving them a guilt trip.

On the subject of stories in general, I noted in my e-mail that R. Wolbe (Alie Shur, vol II, pg 296) cautioned against telling stories of gedolim of dubious veracity, as it could lead to a weakening in emunas chachamim; I humorously suggested that perhaps someone should publish a book of stories which are so strange that they must be mistaken.

An example of a story that is so strange as to be untrue, is a story told that R. Akivah Eiger responded, in kind, to a letter-writer addressing him, Ha-Gaon Rashkebahag, saying in humility, that he assumed that this the way all were addressed in letters.

On page 109-110 of R. Hanoch Teller's biography of RSZA, R. Shlomo Zalman told R Avigdor Nebanzahl that this story was not genuine, and was made to riducle RAE, as RAE certainly knew that he was the Rashkebahag and would not use such a title to all who addressed him.

Returning to the Netziv story, the question is not if it is true, but rather if it has a lesson for the typical yeshivah student.

Gedolim Biographies

2007-06-11T11:43:00.000-04:00

I read last week with interest Elliot Resnick's interview on Artscroll's accomplishments, and feel that many Jews, no matter how they identify, or what their background is, owe a debt of gratitude to the staff of Artscroll for their monumental Torah dissemination. With that preface in mind, I would like to comment on the genre of gedolim(Torah leaders) biographies discussed in the interview.

Because of halachic and hashkafic(ideological) considerations unique to the Jewish world, authors of the popular gedolim genre, apparently try for a cross between an actual historical biography, and on the other extreme, a hagiography, whose purpose is merely to inspire readers to learn from the protagonist. Two separate and distinct areas that challenge a writer are the question of how to portray, if at all, human frailties, and also editorial decisions that involve ideology.

Regarding human frailties, authors of academic biographies also need to make judgment calls, based on more subjective secular standards, as to what is merely sensational gossip, and should therefore be excluded from a book. To quote Dr. Marc Shapiro("Of Books and Bans", Edah Journal, 2003) regarding a biography which was written more in an academic style:

Every biography involves choosing from a mass of information in order to portray various characters. When dealing with potentially controversial matters, my own yardstick has always been whether the information will help in one's assessment of the individuals concerned, or if is it simply voyeuristic gossip...

What about from strictly a Halachic perspective? On the one hand people are not inspired by figures which they can't emulate. To quote Rabbi Emanuel Feldman(Jewish Action Summer, 2002):

It is precisely because gedolim and posekim are so crucial to Jewish existence
that searching biographies, grounded in life and in truth, are so indispensable. The masses of Jews thirst for uplift and inspiration. Puerile, cookie- cutter life stories are no tribute to the
gedolim and no help to us. That incisive biographies do appear from time to time only underscores the fact that it can be done. Such writing requires not only objectivity and careful research, but also a recognition ofthe reader’s intelligence and his ability to absorb ideas and subtleties. When a reader senses that he is being condescended to, that instead of an account
of a meaningful life he is being offered bedtime stories, that reader, if he has
any self-respect, will turn away.

On the other hand, "humanizing" Gedolim would require disclosing certain negative information, which would involve a halachic question of lashon hara. Is it permissible to focus on the immaturities of youth in order to bring out a lessen? I understand that proponents of the Making of a Gadol type of genre argue that "humanization" is not really negative(or that is for a good purpose), and that that the intelligent reader can see the greatness in how the Gadol overcame a problem, but those who favor the more hagiographical type of book apparently hold that there is a halachic problem. Who is correct? I am not a poseik, but I can understand the position of Artscroll.

If halachic considerations of lashon hara(gossip) indeed do not allow a true, or absolute description of a particular facet of a gadol's life, readers should nevertheless keep in mind that any human being is infinitely more complex than as portrayed in even the most complete and fully-disclosed biography, and to paraphrase Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner(Iggeros u-Kesavim, #128), has likely overcome "struggles, failures, falls, and regressions" before he or she had became a model for readers to emulate, rather than "issued from the Hand of their Creator in their full stature and stance". Rabbi Emanuel Feldman writes(Jewish Action, Winter, 2002):

... concerns about halachic constraints of lashon hara are well placed. It is a classic issue in halachah whether such constraints apply to incidents and facts that are well known, and where the clear intent is to instruct readers and not to denigrate the subject. And if, in fact, halachic constraints prevent us from relating the crucial inner struggles and conflicts that might have been present in the lives of today’s great Jews, perhaps we should consider finding a name other than “biographies” with which to label a genre which has the noble purpose of uplifting and inspiring, but—because it cannot relate the entire, balanced story of a life—will not succeed in uplifting and inspiring. The issue is certainly not clear-cut...

I therefore think that we should simply accept the genre for what it is: a slice of reality which is meant to inspire. Judging against the Halachic constraints which the genre need to follow, I think that the books would be considered successful. On the positive side, a significant amount of time is spent on researching and interviews, and I find that the books are written in good taste, and with the goal of educating and inspiring people. Our chachamim tell us, "who is wise, he who can learn from everyone", and if one keeps an open mind, I think that most of us can learn something from these books, whether or not we agree with the overall concept of a near-hagiography.

Hashkafic(ideological) decisions, on the other hand, are a gray area, and here the publisher and author, based on perception of their target market, exercise greater flexibility and discretion. One segment of the Orthodox Jewish market, for example, may feel that it is unimportant and even detrimental, for impressionable children and teenagers to read a description of the secular books that some European Gedolim read in their youth, as this might lead them away from a particular lifestyle(it should be noted, that Artscroll's "Reb Yaakov" mentions that both Rav Aharon Kotler and R. Yaakov Kaminetsky were exposed to secular literature in their youth).

Other, less insular parts of the Orthodox community, which range from parts of the Yeshivah world to the entire Centrist and Modern Orthodoxy communities, to the contrary, benefit from a more intellectually-open, or less-sanitized editorial approach when it comes to writing about issues of ideological nuance. Artscroll and other haredi publishers needs to take the needs of the more Right-wing segment of its market into consideration, and on such and similar issues, are unable to satisfy the needs of both its less and more worldly readership simultaneously.

Instead of the latter group negatively focusing on what they understandably perceive as editorial slant(one sentence in the translations of Makor Baruch or Hamoadim B'halacha, for example) , this group should continue to develop it's own articles, books, and electronic media to offer an alternative to Artscroll's treatment of issues involving ideological nuance or contention.

One might suggest an innovative approach for Artscroll as well, which might satisfy more people. At times, the Jewish Observer has noted that a supplemental discussion of certain topics is available from their office. Obviously, they feel constrained not to expose some of their readers to certain information(detailed discussions of evolution, for example). Artscroll can similarly translate the above-mentioned volumes as they see fit, but note that upon request, additional discussion is available. Such discussion should be on a high intellectual-level, and should be a respectful, fair, and open presentation of both sides of the editorial decision. This might seem awkward, and doubtless, would not satisfy everyone, but it is an out of the box suggestion, for an out of the box problem, or a unique one to the Jewish world.

Hareidi Modesty Guidelines and Rabbinic Authority

2007-05-29T20:22:00.000-04:00

The Israeli Yated has an article about a new beis din(religious court) set up to safeguard kedushas Yisroel and tsnius(Jewish sanctity and modesty). Although no one knows yet exactly what its role will be, there has already been internet comment, both positive and negative, depending on ones's hashkafic(philosophical) inclinations. The beis din has the support of Israeli gedolim(Torah leaders), and the purpose of this post is certainly not to criticize. Nevertheless, I wish to post some respectful comments which have appeared elesewhere on the internet, including my own, representing different reactions to the Yated piece.

Do you agree with either Reuvein, Shimon, Levi, myself(Baruch), or do you support any other view in between? Slow- to- change Americans would no doubt prefer the interesting approach I quote from a woman blogger, at the very end of this post.

Reuvein:

...Why can't the Chareidi segment of our population more strictly govern the manner in which they buy and wear ladies' clothing? I think they can, it doesn't affect me, and I wish them gezundteheit. There will always be people who need strong direction in their lives - people who prefer to live in an authoritarian society, or at least community. They need less toys in their life, their meals are simple, and they're happiest with a sefer, a table and a chair, maybe a cup of coffee too. They enjoy living in a rabbinic-led community. Let's just leave them alone, and let them live and be well.

Baruch:
I agree with "live and let live". But people might be concerned that this will influence the American charedi world. On the other hand, as I said above, that might be unrealistic.

Shimon:
As I said earlier in a post, the real issue is control and fear that women are becoming too "modern." Again, I repeat, when the ban against women studying in various insitutions for higher degrees was announced the Haredi women who were the object of the ban were comptely taken unawares and many were insulted, upset, hurt, and shocked, though as part of the Haredi community they could not speak for the record.

Levi:
Shimon-- I think you are wrong about this. I don't think the ban on higher degrees had anything to do with controlling women - it is about government interference or perceived government interference in the beis yaakov schools, an old battle that has little to do with women specifically. It also is not really about what they allow women to study - it is what they want in the beis yaakov system itself.

Baruch:
Levi--I made the same point. It true that in the charedi world, women play a less public or prominent role, may not be given a public voice, and rulings such as those being discussed are issued and handed down through men, but I see no concept of a need to control women, neither in general, nor in regards to the educational and modesty directives in particular. When there is a ruling which affects men, they are also expected to comply even if they personally disagree.

Levi:
Baruch-- Where I differ from you is that while I don't think the gedolim are trying to control women with modesty decrees, I do think they reflect a level of anxiety in the culture that is unhealthy and a change in attitude among the rank and file. I think the anxiety is more general - but yeshivish culture can be quite hard on men who arent going to be the next gedolei hador and some of this reflects displaced tension IMO.

There is also anxiety about the general coarsening of the culture, and in Israel there is also much general tension and anxiety due to the security situation. Many of the tznius decress are explicitly linked to the security situation - "the arabs have the z'chus of tznius" etc - some of the mehadrin buses were made mehadrin after terror attacks to "increase zchusim" etc. I do not think the tznius trends are benign. It is true that these anxieties spill over to male issues too, but right now they are spilling over to women. I think the educational issue is separate.

Reuvein:
Shimon--Some see a sinister motive in a hechsher for ladies' clothing. Its about control, power, etc. I just had two Williamsburg Satmar ladies in my[law] office. I told them about the Jerusalem beis din, and it was no big deal for them. Their first response was, We already have it for the girls in school. Quite true, hadn't thought of it. So do my girls, who attend centrist Beis Yaakov schools.

We have an outbreak of pedophilia here and in Israel today, that we never had before, because of the sexually charged environment in which we live. Its in the media, on the Internet, it is in women's clothing, it is everywhere. Respectable corporations are selling porn. Underdressed women are in the workplace, and as a Jewish historian, you know that wasn't so years ago, when women were almost always home. Men are being sexually stimulated today 24/7, and a few men who cannot handle these images are acting out with children. Let the old rabbis and their zealous followers try the beis din, and let's see what happens.

Shimon:

Reuvein--From everything I read I think there was absolutely no consulting with the haredi women effected to see how the ban on certain types of higher education would in practice effect them, and whether any alternatives were possible. I am ready to be corrected.I believe this new Bet Din will be used as an instument of control, not just of guidance and pesak. Time will tell.

Baruch:

Levi-- I am uncomfortable with the uniformity in the charedi world and the way rules are sometimes set down, and I understand your point.

To develop my previous point, the following was from the text of the modesty guidelines in Israel:

"Each and every individual has an obligation to ensure that his wife's and daughters' attire meets accepted standards of modesty, both in terms of covering the body and clothing styles — at all times and in all places. "

Some may see this as "controlling" women, and I could see their point. But my sense of the Israeli Torah world is that there is a healthy balance between women and men's contributions and oversight of each other's spirituality, and any "control" is tempered(those with a sense of humor will point to "hen-pecked" husbands, which is presumably, a universal phenomenon). In a healthy marriage--Israeli/charedi or otherwise--men and women have a respect for each other which tempers the role of each spouse's "oversight".

While I don't see the woman issue as a major factor, I agree that many people, especially Americans, are comfortable with a more individual, slow, and personal approach on various issues. However, as Reuvein wrote, the Israeli community is generally happy with a more uniform and authoritative approach(I agree that, as in the case of Beis Yaakov degrees, there can be exceptions).

Baruch:

I saw this comment some time ago by a woman on another blog, and I think that this approach would be better for some in America:

"Our family's yeshiva... has a very nice program in place that provides the forum needed to address issues, including "delicate" ones. Every so often, one of the rosh yeshivas will call a married guy va'ad. Basically, it's a discussion group where a specific topic is addressed. Guys are encouraged to submit topics which they would like to discuss. It's a great way to provide suggestions in a gentle, non-threatening environment.

The va'ads are also an opportunity for guys to ask questions and get practical ideas for applications of principles set forth. Each guy can share the ideas from the va'ad over dinner with his wife. The key ingredient which I believe makes this sort of forum successful is the smallness of the unit. That is, rather than having an entire community gather in a huge auditorium to listen to speeches, this set-up provides the opportunity for a real give and take, making it all more personal and, therefore, more effective. These kind of discussion groups can be held periodically by shuls or other smaller community groups."

Daas Torah and Secular Knowledge: Towards a Minimalistic View

2007-05-27T20:59:00.000-04:00

FKM's post has inspired some additional thought on how daas Torah relates to other sources of knowledge. I would like to argue in favor of a more minimalistic view of daas Torah, insofar as the question of secular knowledge impacting on a daas Torah opinion or decision is concerned.

First, a practical point. I think that if one wants daas Torah to be accepted by centrists, or even by "left-wing charedim", one needs to allow for a flexible or minimalistic concept of daas Torah. While I agree with the general concept of the Torah's transcendence, as implied in "daas Torah is daas that is formed solely by Torah", I don't know if we need to de-emphasize the role that "secular" ideas may play in a daas Torah decison.

For example, in article titled "What Daat Torah Really Means", R. Avi Shafran writes that some conception of Daas Torah can indeed be accepted by all Orthodox Jews:

Whether Da'at Torah should be discounted by non-haredi Jews or not (not)... What Da'at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews - just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice…The phrase "Modern Orthodox" seems to mean several very different things to different groups of Jews. But if the word "Orthodox" is to have any meaning at all, it has to reflect a basic belief in the supremacy and scope of Torah.

Upon reflection, I think that one can't have it both ways. If non-charedim are supposed to accept, to an extent, daas Torah, then one must, for example, accord RYBS and RAAK a certain daas Torah and Gadol status(even if, in the charedi view, they are "not our Gedolim").

Similarly, there are talmidie chachamim in the charedi world who are referred to as Gedolim and whose views are given daas Torah status, yet have secular knowledge. If these talmidie chachamim don't have gedolim or daas Torah status, then we shouldn't be asking them questions( I understand that the question of "who is a Gadol" was not the original subject of discussion in the above two links and quotes, and that one can respect talmidie chachamim with secular knowledge, as well as their decisions, no matter how one relates daas Torah to secular knowledge, but I bring up this point, as it is somewhat related). Eventually, if one maximizes the concept of daas Torah and Gedolim, at a certain point, one undermines the concepts. That is one reason why I question if the existence of Gedolim cards, in the long run, strengthens or weakens the concept of Gedolim, particularly beyond charedi circles.

I agree with Rabbi Adlerstein's points in "Daas Torah: The Core Values":

There is a second casualty generated by any Daas Torah discussion, besides the animosity and recriminations. Lots of people are turned off by extreme positions – either for good reason, or for lack of understanding…

A corollary of this is that all Torah giants have these gifts, whether or not they agree with each other. If you[deny] the Daas Torah of any individual who spends decades steeped in the full time pursuit of Torah learning, achieving recognized excellence therein, you undermine the entire concept. You can take issue with positions of that person for a variety of good reasons, such as following the Daas Torah of a larger group of luminaries, or following the opinions of your own rebbi and mentor, but you should not be able to deny him the gift of Daas Torah.

That’s it. I am purposefully avoiding issues such as who has more Daas Torah than whom, how to weigh the contribution of Daas Torah to a decision relative to other contributions, such as experience and specialized study, and which kinds of questions need to be brought to Torah leadership for answers. About these, reasonable people – as well as many unreasonable ones – will passionately disagree...

The question of the impact of secular knowledge on daas Torah, really relates to the question of the relation of secular knowledge to Torah. As was discussed in the comments of FKM's previous post, the interface between Torah and secular knowledge is an age-old question, as is the issue of being "influenced" by secular thought.

Furthermore, even though the kabbalistic sources quoted are part of our mesorah and I personally consider the Ramban in the preface to Bereishis to be a fundamental of Yahadus, I think it would be fair to note that the Rambam or other rationalistic rishonim or acharonim might not hold that it a required belief to express the concept of the Torah's transcendence in terms of saying that physiognomy and palmistry can (theoretically) be understood from Bereshis without other knowledge, or with the illustration of the Chazon Ish miraculously advising on surgery as a result of Torah study. Even if everyone would agree that it is indeed a required belief of Judaism(eg, based on the fact that chazal say that Torah predated the physical universe, and on how one defines maaseh bereshis and maaseh merkaveh), some might still argue that in contemporary times as well, gedolim should attain secular knowledge and integrate it with their Torah knowledge.

Although "rishonim k'malachim", and we can not compare our ability to relate/filter/synthesize secular studies with Torah to theirs, I think that it is fair to say that there was, and still is, some difference among rishonim, acharonim, and current Gedolim/talmdie chachamim, about the relationship of secular knowledge to Torah, and how "maximalist" a Daas Torah concept one should have as a result. Hopefully, these differences can be supported by cogent arguments, and in a manner of mutual respect.

Voice from the Middle

2007-05-18T12:02:00.000-04:00

The following is a link to a discussion that I participated in earlier, comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of the Right and the Center of Orthodoxy. This comment caught my eye, and as noted on that blog, the commenter appears to be a thoughtful person for his age-group. I wish him hatzlacha in resolving Jewish Life's great issues, and hope that he gets a solid foundation in the principles of limmud haTorah and Yiddishkeit, no matter which of the paths, or combination thereof, he ends up choosing.

I actually had a discussion about this topic this past Shabbos with one of my older Rebbeim who I am close with. He was a Talmid of Rav Moshe, and identifies with the Yeshivishe Olam (but does realize the importance of being "normal").

As opposed to speaking about the differences between YU and Hesder, it was more about differences between YU and the Chareidim.The way he put it was that, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch came up with his concept of "Torah Im Derech Eretz" and created a set path, before doing anything.

YU on the other hand, kind of just morphed and formed, and was much more reactionary. (And when Rav Soloveitchik entered the scene, the concept of Torah U'mada was something that they latched on to). While I do believe that there is a concept of Torah U'Mada, like you said, it is not necessarily being conveyed or articulated to the hundreds of students in the MYP program.

For anyone who has been following recent YU activities, it seems they are really trying to make a push to have a "derech" and spread it around North America... [The goal of] the "Center for Jewish Future" at YU, is to basically do exactly what you said YU has not done.

I am still currently in Highschool, and i often think about what I am going to do with myself later in life. And while I value the love and importance of Limud Torah that the Charedi world gives, I do not feel I could be apart of that Olam. On the other hand, I know that being in the MO world, the challenge will be much greater. (Especially because who knows where NCSY kollel etc. will be 10-20 years from now). Often I find myself interested in ultimately residing in one of these Religous Zionist Communities, that have that love for Torah, and the teachings of Rav Kook etc., and the Love for Israel, and is acutally reflected in the actions of adults and children alike.

I don't mean to bore you with all of my personal thoughts, but because everything has become institutionalized and labeled, it is much harder to live with the unique identity that you create for yourself, and instill that identity in your children.

Elements of the Daas Torah Concept

2007-05-09T00:55:00.000-04:00

Some musings on the concept of Daas Torah, as a continuation of the comments in the previous posting. I also link at the end of this post, two essays on the subject which I feel are nuanced.

I mentioned two points about Daas Torah in the comment section of my previous post:

(1) Who makes final decisions for the klal, ie, it is gedolim versus politicians.

(2) Daas Torah , by definition, is where there isn't any clear-cut halachic issue involved.

Another point is the ruach hakodesh element. The concept extends the Divine inspiration element in Torah itself to Daas Torah issues, however one understands Divine inspiration by actual Torah(eg , the Raavad's statement that 'Ruach Hakodesh appeared in our Beis Midrash"; in this sense, daas Torah is similar to "chacham adif mnavi').

As far as Daas Torah and infallibility, the fact is that the gemera applies the pasuk of "meshiv chachmim achar", that chachamim can err in judgment. I wonder how R. Dessler's opinion, which is, if I correctly understand, that gedolim could not have erred during the Holocaust because of Divine guidance, would explain this gemera. Actually, Rav Hutner(quoted in Rabbi A. Cohens' essay, below) said that one need not say that the outcome of certain decisions turned out in fact correct, rather that the process was a correct one.

The concept of Daas Torah, to the extent that one accepts it, applies both on the individual and the communal level. Daas Torah is not a new concept, but perhaps one might suggest that R. Elchanon extended the concept of Torah authority to a radically changed world in the 20th century, where the Torah world interacted on a global and political scale, and needed to be organized. Alternatively, perhaps his chiddush was a response to the weakening by Haskala of Torah authority.

The authority of daas Torah on a communal level is an organizing force in the modern era, where there is little central authority, and when there needs to be a unified reaction or behavior. For certain issues, there needs to be some organization, rank, and hierarchy--someone needs to advocate for the cause of the Jewish State publicly observing Shabbos, or local concerns like tzniyus or education which affect the entire klal in each city, and it is as if there is an informal hierarchy of the Sanhedrin, in terms of final psak. In effect, it is the creation and organization of a Torah nation in galus.

For example, during the El Al crisis, gedolim in Eretz Yisreal communicated to rabbonim in America not to be lenient for hefsed merubah out of concern of chillul Hashem. The concept of poskim in Eretz Yisrael telling American poskim how to rule, I think is based on the fact that the issue of El Al is primarily relevant to Eretz Yisrael, and gedolim from that country are naturally more familiar with and responsible for the issue, and therefore are the ones to impose the final psak(otherwise, each rav should be able to rule for himself).

As I mentioned in the previous post, parts of modern Orthodoxy accept the idea of Daas Torah as well, although in less intense degrees. Some differences might be, how much to rely on secular knowledge or on expert, non-Torah opinion, whose opinion qualifies as authoritative to bind a community, how intensely or monolithically should Daas Torah opinions be stated, how much public debate to allow on the layperson's level, such as in the media, as well as the actual differences in the content of the Daas Torah opinions.

Concerning these differences, I would appply the quote from the Cross Currents essay below:

A corollary of this is that all Torah giants have these gifts, whether or not they agree with each other. If you[deny] the Daas Torah of any individual who spends decades steeped in the full time pursuit of Torah learning, achieving recognized excellence therein, you undermine the entire concept. You can take issue with positions of that person for a variety of good reasons, such as following the Daas Torah of a larger group of luminaries, or following the opinions of your own rebbi and mentor, but you should not be able to deny him the gift of Daas Torah.

Finally, as someone mentioned to me, Daas Torah may be taken overboard by some individuals even by charedi standards, and to the extent that this occurs in public perception, the true concept is undermined.

Here is a link to Rabbi Alfred Cohen's essay(you need to further click on the link which is in the first paragrpah of the linked article) and to a Cross Current discussion.

Chochma/Torah B'goyim

2007-05-07T13:19:00.000-04:00

The interface between Torah and other sources of knowledge is by no means a new issue. See link and comment here, or join the discussion there.

Of Accuracy, Fairness, and Precision

2007-05-03T00:10:00.000-04:00

In the sea of information of the Internet we see ourselves as an island of accuracy, fairness, and precision that is always present. Ynet is committed to uphold the rules of ethics of the Israeli Journalism Council and the Israeli Association of Journalists - no less than to the rules of speed and flexibility on the Internet.

No, this is not a description of Mishmar, but rather a self-description of Ynet News, which according to their website, is

based at the headquarters of Ynet in Tel Aviv, Israel... we develop our daily updates and features from the quality reporting and writing at Ynet and the best items from “Yedioth Ahronoth” and other publications from our parent company, Yedioth Group, Israel’s leading newspaper, book and magazine publisher.

I link to an article discussing an editorial which has appeared in the Israeli Yated, according to Ynet. While I think that discussion of the Yated editorial is a fair and important topic in of itself, I can not help but being turned off by the blatant anti-charedi stereotyping which appears in the "island of fairness", which in my opinion, renders the news source in question unprofessional .

For the record, if Ynet quotes the Israeli Yated editorial accurately and in context, I certainly do not agree with that editorial line, which I think goes beyond a strictly charedi point of view(my assumption being that there are varying degrees of acceptance of and sensitivity to secular Israeli's accomplishment in the charedi world).

What bothers me, for example, is the photo with the caption " Haredim Ungrateful", which appears on the upper left of the Ynet editorial. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists should

make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

Of course, all writers, including this one have biases which may slant their writing and analysis. For that reason, advocacy journalists declare their biases upfront, and argue that they are better than mainstream media, whose biases may be more subtle and implicit.

Now considering that some consider the New York Times to have anti-Israel or other biases, what would be the equivalent of the Ynet photo and caption in the New York Times ? Sure, some, or even a number of charedim may support the Yated's views in varying degrees, but saying that a group as a whole, is "ungrateful" and attaching a graphic image to it, is taking sides in a complex situation resulting from a decades-long kulturkampf, can easily lead to ill feelings in the splintered Israeli society, and additionally as mentioned above, is unprofessional stereotyping. After all, we know who(or what) haredim are, so why the picture next to an editorial? I find it hard to imagine the New York Times or any major American media outlet doing the precise equivalent about Jews, Charedim, or about Israel. I realize that this is a broad statement, so I welcome comparisons in support or in disagreement with my contention.

I would think that the biases of the NYT and other mainstream media would appear to be more subtle, and in that way, the newpapers would have therefore not committed such egregious stereotyping. Yet some might feel that any issues in the other media are a worse example of bias, precisely because the slant is more subtle and it appears more professional than the Ynet example.

Back to Ynet, this post is based on my impressions which I have had for some time, and is obviously, not an exhaustive study. As above, if someone wants to cite examples from Ynet, supporting or disagreeing with my view, I welcome that as well.

Letter Submitted to Mishpocha Magazine

2007-04-20T01:52:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor,

I would like to wish Rabbi Horowitz continued hatzlacha in the writing of his important Mishpacha columns, while also sharing with his critic my thoughts, which I hope will be understood in the spirit of devorim hayotzim min h'aleiv.

It should be obvious that Rabbi Horowitz is working within the charedi system. On the weighty issue of balancing the sometimes conflicting goals of satisfying the individual and unique needs of our children ---chanoch l'naar al pi darko--against the imperative to nurture the next generation's gedolie Torah b'derch Yisroel Saba, Rabbi Horowitz undoubtedly benefits from the guidance of his own rebbeim, and from that of today's einei heidah. However, while a consensus may be reached amongst gedolie yisrael on basic topics, there certainly may be disagreement on specific issues, particularly since circumstances and communities vary.

On a more general note, I think that any reader writing to Mishpacha or to other publications should, like any speaker or writer, take into consideration the needs and backgrounds of his or her audience, as well as the fact that today, a letter may travel electronically beyond its original boundaries. As someone familiar with various media forums that operate outside the boundaries of the more insular parts of the yeshivah and chassidic worlds, it is obvious to me that the beauty of Mishpacha is precisely that it appeals to a diverse audience. In a certain sense, then, the varied readership need to make certain reasonable allowances for each other, for the media version of hinei mah tov u'mah naim sheves achim gam yachad to be able to work.

If I could say something to the letter-writer and to the authors of similar letters, it would be: chachamim hezahuru b'divreichem. Sadly, you are not bringing kavod to either the ideals or to the rebbeim whom you are seen as representing, if you are perceived as overreacting, or unable to show understanding to those who may follow, perhaps a slightly different derech in Yiddishkeit. There are many people who share important Torah values with even the more insular parts of the charedi world, but who feel pushed away and alienated for various reasons, hameivin yavin(already, one writer has said that the attitudes in the letter in question justify the blogosphere).

While you are entitled to feel "surprised and upset that Mishpacha printed [Rabbi Horowitz's ] column", had you shown appropriate understanding for another point of view, and also used more nuanced and balanced language when expressing your ideas, I think that your valid concerns might have been taken seriously by even those having different backgrounds and opinions than your own.

Baruch Horowitz,

Brooklyn, NY

Chulent, The View from the Fringes, and Blogging

2007-03-08T20:51:00.000-05:00

While we rightfully take satisfaction in the growth of Torah Judaism in America, we also need to face the problems and challenges which that very growth has brought. Facing the underside of any society is not pleasant, but it needs to be done. Although there are no easy answers to serious problems, we should work towards partially ameliorating problematic situations.

The topic of "non-conformists" to Orthodox Jewish life has been addressed during recent years. During the teenage period, we call it "at risk teens" or "going off the derech". During adult years, it seems that less attention has been paid to the phenomenon. Hella Winston has written about the latter topic in her book "Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels". There are those who feel that her book leaves the reader to form a skewed and incorrect overall picture of chassidic society. Whether her writing is fair or not, all agree, however, that there are adults, as well as children who do not fit in neatly to Orthodox society.

I link to an article titled "Hasidim on the Fringe", which has been discussed on Harry Maryles' blog. The following paragraph tells how this group started:

Chulent started fifteen years ago as an after-business schmooze at the offices of its founder, Isaac Schonfeld, a thirty-something bachelor from Boro Park. The event began with a small circle of friends, mostly Hasidic men, many of them divorced, going through divorces, or single past the age of twenty-five--all aberrations in the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic world, where men and women are typically married by their late teens or early twenties and where divorce carries with it a social stigma more in sync with the early twentieth century than our own decade. These men "found themselves at the periphery of society because their religious convictions were being challenged internally," says Schonfeld. Together they created a "mini-society" with Chulent serving as their "ir miklat," or "city of refuge" (a reference to the biblical cities of refuge to which a accidental killer was sent to escape a potential avenger). Though Schonfeld initially hoped to keep the crowd somewhat exclusive, he never made a secret of Chulent. News of it spread, mostly by word-of-mouth, and Chulent soon gained popularity among a fringe group of ultra-Orthodox men, some women, and eventually a larger, more diverse group of Jews.

How can the Orthodox world prevent the need for "cities of refuge"? True, there will always be rebels, but not every person who doesn't neatly fit in is a rebel. Sometimes, we have to be more understanding when thinking about why people do not conform easily. Such people may be working bnei torah, older singles, or people struggling with issues of faith and doubt. If there is something that the Frum community can do to minimize the phenomenon, then we should be doing it.

In society at large, there are social circles and support groups for all types of issues and groups. In effect, "Chulent" serves as one type of support group in the Frum world, itself serving different types of people. Everyone needs a society or group to belong to.

One positive example of a specialized social group is Tiferes B'nei Torah(home of the "Shmuz"), described below. Not everyone takes the Brisk, Mir, Lakewood route, and some need a "chevra" to belong to after they have left yeshiva. People develop in different ways, and there should be a place in the Torah world for the maximum amount of people to develop at their individual pace . From the website:

As a nation we are flourishing. Our Yeshivas and Bais Yaakovs are filled to capacity; our Shuls and Batei Medrashim are packed; our communities are overflowing - Torah learning seems to increase on a daily basis. Yet, for many young, working people the question remains "where do I fit in?" Tifereth Bnei Torah was created to fill that void. Six years ago, Rabbi Henoch Lebowitz, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Chofetz Chaim Yeshivas, envisioned creating a social environment, almost a community within our communities, where a young, working Ben Torah could find his place -- a place where he could learn, a home that would stimulate him to grow, an environment that would nurture a sense of connection. That vision is now Tiferes Bnei Torah.

And now, on to a topic closer to home. What role does blogging play as a "support group", if it does at all ? To answer this question, I would divide the participants in Jblog discussions into three types. There are the anti-establishment members of the blogosphere, those with a gripe against society and have an extremely negative focus. There are also those on the blogosphere thinking or struggling about issues of faith, and gravitate towards places where people may voice doubts which they are not comfortable raising publicly. Both of these types of people find blogs, or fellow commenters who serve as support groups for those interested in the issues addressed. While I think that there are basic courtesies that one should observe when discussing problems confronting the Orthodox community, and I am likewise seriously concerned about people being exposed to anti-Torah ideas on the internet, my focus is not on either of these two groups.

I am thinking rather of the more "mainstream" bloggers and commenters. Obviously, mainstream is in the eyes of the beholder. I do not identify "mainstream" as either charedi or modern-Orthodox, but rather those who even when voicing criticism, do it in a responsible way, and do not come across as anti-Establishment(although, the latter is a relative term).

Let's face it: most of us enjoy blogging, and it fulfills certain needs. For some, blogging is simply another medium of communication. Yet for others, even in what we consider the "mainstream" group, blogging may go further than that. Perhaps it fills the void formed previously by a relatively highly-controlled media, where even slightly unconventional ideas are not always given sufficient voice. Certainly, the anonymity factor can be beneficial on blogs (although it can be abused as well). It is reasonable to state that for many, even those "not on the fringes", blogging may be a sort of an alternative society, and a type of social or support group.

Whether the charedi world will recognize blogging, if at all, remains to be seen. In the meantime, we can try to be more understanding of those in the "Chulent" group, even as we hope that they grow in their connection to Torah. And even if blogging is far from perfect, we can endeavor to make the activity as responsible as possible.

The Rabbi Speaks

2007-03-04T14:26:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to stay away (from the J-Bloggosphere in general) but I wanted to at least link to Rabbi Fred's new column for those who don't read him on a regular basis. It's a must-see on the national character of Western society, and most particularly America. On a related note, I've been doing lots of thinking and reading on the decadence and decline of Western society lately, and the verdict isn't pretty. Perhaps some thoughts on this in the future.

The Challenge of Constructive Criticism

2007-02-23T02:33:00.000-05:00

An article in last week's Yated entitled "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is It Orthodox? " is being discussed on the blogoshere. I would like to move away from the question of whether specific statements and actions, made or done by some affiliated with the yeshivah are or are not beyond the pale of Orthodoxy. Instead, I wish to focus on the purpose and goal in writing the article in question.

The article's purpose is mentioned in the last section:

In a way, YCT is acting in the tradition of the Maskilim of a previous era. Although they are not experiencing the success that the Maskilim had with the masses on an individual level, on a communal level, their efforts to conquer pulpits in communities across the United States and Canada is something that should concern every Jew who values kvod shomayim.

It was with great reservation and heartache that we undertook to expose to our readers to the terribly destructive conduct of YCT. It is a responsibility that we undertook with great trepidation. As a Torah newspaper we hesitate to expose and pain our readership by enumerating the terribly distressing things contained within this article.

Nevertheless, after watching YCT develop and spread with barely a peep of public outcry from the Modern / Centrist Orthodox establishment we felt compelled by the injunction of our sages, that state, “Bemakom she’ein ish, hishtadel lihiyos ish: In a place where there are no leaders; strive to be a leader (Avos 2-6).”

The wider community must be made aware of this growing threat, this growing attack on the very foundations of our faith that is gathering strength. We hope that this small sampling of items will travel well beyond the natural constituency of Yated readers and serve as a point of discussion and most importantly a wake up call for all Jews, Right, Left or Center, who truly care about kvod shomyaim and the integrity of the Halachic system.

Jewish leadership involves walking a tightrope called s'mol docheh v'ymin mekareves. On the one hand, if one is afraid to speak out when appropriate, then a person will never be able to criticize anyone for fear of alienating them. This is an abdication of leadership. On the other hand, one must be very careful lest one push people away; erring on the side of s'mol docheh, is not an option, and it is counterproductive to one's cause.

Edah and Chovevie Torah were founded because there were those that felt that Modern Orthodoxy had shifted rightward. As Rabbi Saul Berman wrote in the Jewish Press("The Emergence, Role, and Closing of Edah"):

By 1995, Modern Orthodoxy was in crisis. The lead American institutions of Modern Orthodoxy had been reoriented toward the separatist, haredi ideology. For many who resisted the separatist shift, being Modern Orthodox had come simply to mean not being as frum. Modern Orthodox Jews were feeling isolated and besieged. Modern Orthodoxy seemed to have lost both its identity and its way.

We founded Edah in 1997 as a think tank to restore the essential elements of Modern Orthodox ideology. Edah was not formed as a critique of haredi Orthodoxy but as a critique of the Modern Orthodox neglect of its own distinctive ideological positions.

YCT was founded for a similar reason, as mentioned by Rabbis Dov Linzer and Avi Weiss in an article in Sh'ma ( "Creating an Open Orthodox Rabbinate"):

Orthodox Judaism is currently at a crossroads. In the post-Holocaust generation, Ortho-doxy has shown new life, attracting and maintaining adherents and cultivating an increasing commitment to scrupulous observance and regular Torah study. The choice that Orthodoxy faces today is whether to focus on the needs of its own community or on the needs of the larger Jewish community, expanding outward, nondogmatically and cooperatively. Believing in an Orthodoxy that is open intellectually and expansive and inclusive in practice, we need a new breed of rabbis. To this end, three years ago, we created Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School.

To it's credit, Open Orthodoxy's leaders speak about their Orthodoxy and commitment to Halacha. However, by its own defintions, this school of thought pushes the limits of Orthodoxy leftward. Certainly, there have been statements made by its graduates which those to its right find seriously objectionable, and there is concern that the rest of the Orthodox world could be influenced in that direction. Yet, the people who affiliate in different ways with the school are Torah observant, and they should not be pushed towards institutions which are not part of Orthodoxy. The challenge for the Orthodox world to the right of YCT is to find a constructive way in which to respond.

I felt that there was much merit in an article by Rabbi Amos Bunim which the Yated had previously published, and which was also printed in the Five Towns Jewish Times:

The lay leadership of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah expressed their feelings that Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), an affiliate of Yeshiva University, has leanings that are more to the right and that it was necessary to organize Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as a Modern Orthodox yeshiva that would have leanings more to the left.

Edah and Chovevei Torah are creating a movement that will encompass those who identify themselves as part of the Orthodox left. The leaders of these organizations, however, should be prepared to face the fact that such a step involves enormous challenges to the very fabric of our religious beliefs. Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and its leaders should therefore redouble their efforts to remain true to the tenets of Torah and Yiddishkeit...

Rabbis Berman and Weiss ought to look into some of the positions and philosophies espoused by some musmachim of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. These positions need to be corrected in order to ensure that critical errors not be made.

What needs to be done now is to reevaluate many of the positions and philosophies that have developed within this new movement, with an eye toward reestablishing the primacy of Toras emes. My wish for them is, “chazak ve’ematz” in Torah values.

It is important to note that despite the strong concern that Judaism in America would not thrive unless altered, the camp of b’nei Torah is flourishing and blossoming. The underlying reason for the burgeoning of the b’nei Torah camp cannot be dismissed: it represents true, unadulterated Toras emes. Refusing to compromise in dikduk ha’mitzvos and Torah-true values is the secret behind the success of the b’nei Torah movement.

I was most impressed with the ymin m'kareves element implicit in "my wish for them is, “chazak ve’ematz” in Torah values " and in "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and its leaders should therefore redouble their efforts to remain true to the tenets of Torah and Yiddishkeit".

Certainly, people have a right, and from their perspective a duty, to be concerned about the direction of YCT, and to engage in necessary criticism. But we should also be very careful of responses which are merely cathartic, and which do not clearly reflect a concern on the part of the critic for those being critiqued. While I am not judging whether the Yated article fufilled this aspect or not, the broader point is that we need to ensure that any future criticism will be interpreted as reflecting both a firmness in resolve, but also a true caring and genuine concern for our bretheren in the Open Orthodoxy camp.

Don't be Frum

2007-02-14T23:09:00.000-05:00

No, this is not pre-Adar humor; I mean the post's title seriously.

Readers must be thinking, it finally has happened: Mishmar has flipped. The decline began by discussing the Indiana Colts, then Tertullian, and finally this...Must have something to do with Bari's departure.

Well, actually not. I am referring to one connotation of the word "Frumkeit", which refers to a superficial, and instinctive religiosity, that doesn't stand up to reason and Torah principles. Rav Wolbe ztl(Alie Shur Vol II) discusses this issue, and actually has a section called "Frumkiet", in which he considers such behavior the antithesis of mussar. He defines it as an instinctive form of religiosity, which is subconsciously done to satisfy one's ego. This is a totally normal drive, but mussar's goal is to be aware of the subconscious motives in behavior, and to refine the lishmah(correct intention) content of action.

In the most recent Hakirah issue, there is an article by Dr. Aaron Hersh Fried titled, "Are Our Children Too Wordly". Dr. Fried tries to strike a balance between isolation and awareness of the world, which will work for the chareidi community. I found his approach refreshing. He also has a few fascinating anecdotes, including conversations with Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky and with the Klausenberger Rebbe, zichronom livracha.

The conversation with R. Yaakov relates to my previous point about frumkiet:

You know, when I was a boy growing up, I had a friend He was always a little more than I was, and did more than I did. He was a year older: I was 10 and he was 11. He wore long payos, I didn’t. He wore a gartel, and I didn’t.

Last summer when I was in Eretz Yisrael, I met him again. He was living in K’far Saba and I paid him a visit. While talking to him I found out that things had changed and that, unfortunately, he was now turning on the lights on Shabbos.

He turned to me and he asked, ‘Yankel, what’s happened to us? “Ich bin doch altz geven frummer” (Wasn’t I always frumer than you??!!), to which I replied [and here Reb Yaakov smiled and there was a glint in his eyes], “Ye, ye du bist takke allz geven frummer, ich bin obber alz geven kluger.” “Yes, yes you were always frummer but I was always kluger (wiser).”

Also notworthy is the advice of the Klausenberger Rebbe concerning how CHUSH(Jewish Center for Special Education) should educate its students:

“...You and your teachers spend most of your time thinking about how to teach a child to read one more letter, one more line in the siddur, prayer book. You want him to learn one more verse in Chumash, or one more segment of Gemara. All this is very good. But, unless you make a conscious effort, you may be missing the point. Your children may grow up and never learn what it means to be a Jew, what a Jew believes, or what he prays and hopes for. I think you should teach these children the 13 Ikrim—Principles of Faith—of the Rambam. I would furthermore put up a big sign in the school reading: Da es Elokei avicha v’avdeihu!”

I was puzzled. “But they don’t even teach that in the regular Yeshivos?!” “You’re perfectly right,” the Rebbe answered. “However, the regular yeshivah bachur, as he grows older, will learn in the bais hamidrash, study hall. One day he will go to the bookshelf to get a Rambam on Hilchos G’zelah V’aveidah so as to better understand a piece of Gemara he is learning.
The Ribbono shel Olam, the Master of the universe, will help him and by mistake he will pick up the wrong volume of the Rambam. Back at his seat he will discover that he has
the first volume in his hand, the Sefer Hamada.

Being a little lazy to immediately get up and return to the bookshelf to look for the volume he originally sought, he will stay in his seat and begin to browse through the volume in front of him. Turning the pages he will find it interesting, spend some time reading it and thus gain at least a passing acquaintance with the foundations of our faith (Yesodos HaEmunah). The regular yeshivos can rely on this error occurring. Your children may never be zocheh to make this error (they may never learn independently in a Bais Hamidrash); thus you must take responsibility for teaching them what it means to be a Jew.”

Meditations on the Kuzari

2007-02-08T13:49:00.000-05:00

Further to my previous post, I post below some discussions on the oft-quoted statement from the Kuzari in 1:67 and 1:89. I do not claim to have the final word on the balance of rationality and faith in Judaism, and I invite your comments.

Two additional notes on my previous post:

1) "Credo quia absurdum", is actually not a Christian concept either. Even fedeism( defined as a "system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority"), has been rejected in its extreme degree by some sources in the Catholic Church.

2) I was most impressed by Roberts comment on "Mystical Paths", and on "A Simple Jew", on the thread I linked previously:

OK, I am not a philosopher by any means. Nor am I a ba'al bitachon. I definately go for the Emunah/Chassidishe camp, and nevertheless have a lot of respect for the Chakira/Maimonidean Jews.I talked to my Rabbi about this, and he said that each soul has it's tendency to favour a certain derech. He says that both paths are valid. He also said that we have to follow the Chachamim in Halacha. Just as each of the 13 sh'vattim were different with different ways of serving Hashem, Judaism is rich and replete with different ways of interpreting the Torah.Both Chakira and Emunah have their plusses, and their risks. However this world is not 100% safe anyway.Looks like this is yet another reason to find yourself a Rabbi who will understand your derech and guide you in the way Hashem wants you to go!

The following are some online discussions of the Kuzari:

From Ohr Somayach’s Ask the Rabbi:

Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, in his famous work the Kuzari (1:67), writes that "Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Torah to contradict that which is manifest or proved." Likewise, Heaven forbid that there should be anything manifest or proved which would contradict anything in the Torah. If one is convinced that G-d wrote the Torah and created the world, then one should fear no scientific discovery. Conversely, if one is afraid of what the scientists will discover, then one is clearly not fully aware that everything discoverable was created by G-d.

As mentioned, this assumes that “one is convinced that G-d wrote the Torah and created the world”. If one is wrestling with this idea, there is a choice-- to believe, disbelieve, or remain with questions. Another option is to concentrate on the experiential aspects of Judaism as well.

There is good discussion of the Kuzari in the Summer 2005 Jewish Action in Counterpoint: Kabbalah, Science, and Creation(link is towards the bottom of the OU page ).

Howard Shapiro:

“Wisdom” never really contradicts Torah. Since both spring from the same Source—God, Who gave us Torah and the world—there can be no true conflict between them. As Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi exclaims, “God forbid that any matter of Torah contradict the testimony of direct observation or that which has been proven by logic!” (Kuzari 1:67). And “God forbid that we believe in that which is impossible or that which the intellect rejects and regards as impossible!” (ibid., 1:89). A conflict between the Torah we study and the world we observe would necessitate viewing the Torah as divorced from our sense of reality—a totally unacceptable conclusion for Judaism. Contradictions are possible (perhaps even inevitable) only when wisdom or Torah or both are misconstrued. For example, when logic is spuriously applied to intrinsically non-rational issues, or when scientific models are manipulated as the putative basis of moral values (or their negation), wisdom has overstepped its bounds. Similarly—as affirmed by such recent authorities as Rabbi Hirsch, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz and Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler—when our terrestrial Torah is purported to be readable as a blueprint for (or refutation of ) current scientific hypotheses, Torah has been perverted.

Professor Aviezer:

As one who has extensive experience in this field, let me assure the reader that for the Jew whose spirit is deeply troubled by these many seeming contradictions between Torah and science, it is insufficient to simply say, as Mr. Shapiro suggests, “Don’t worry, there is no true conflict.” When these challenges to Torah are hurled daily by peers whom the Jew admires and respects, and no satisfactory rational answers are forthcoming, doubt sets in and emunah(faith) begins to crumble. The troubled Jew has the right to receive rational explanations to his questions and not be put off by philosophical assurances that everything is really all right. Ignoring these cries for help from the anguished Jewish soul is indeed “a course fraught with danger.

Credo quia absurdum is Not a Jewish Idea

2007-02-08T02:12:00.000-05:00

In Latin, the above phrase means "I believe because it is absurd". While I am not an expert in the field of comparative religion , my understanding is that fideism as well, was rejected by some teachings in the Christian world(the quote , incidentally, is based on a misstatement of another one).

I trust readers realize that this idea is not a part of Yahadus either, l'havdil. As the Kuzari states, "Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Torah to contradict that which is manifest or proved".

There is an interesting discussion going on concerning the nature of emunah on A Simple Jew. It is certainly not the first discussion of such a nature on the Jblogs, but in any event, it is an important topic which we care about as believing Jews. Please direct your comments on the subject to his blog in order to consolidate conversation into one internet location.

Torah-Im-Pro-Sports?

2007-01-21T10:05:00.000-05:00

Bob Miller was kind enough to e-mail me Friday his thoughts on TIPS(Torah im Pro Sports). Commenters are kindly asked to exercise restraint on a topic which often turns out to be a rather contentious one.

Today, Indy is gripped by pro football mania, with our Mayor urging us all to wear blue clothing and businesses to fly blue banners, in the run-up to the AFC Championship game here against the hated so-called Patriots. Since dina d'malchusa dina, I have done my bit (easy 'cause my weekday shirts are blue anyway). The Rolls-Royce aircraft engine plant where I work automatically has lots of blue and white; the R-R corporate colors and the Colts colors are basically the same.

So what do pro sports have to do with Torah? Do they foster good or bad attitudes and midos among the fan(atic)s? Are they a form of bitul Torah in any case? A shul we once belonged to sponsored a group trip to a Detroit Red Wings hockey game, complete with shiurium from the shul's Rav between periods. In our present shul, we have some adherents of an extreme avoda zara cult (NY Yankees) who are otherwise solid citizens and minyan-goers.

As a fan of another NY team (yes, some will also call this avoda zara!), I recall listening on the radio to the Mets' National League playoff series with the Atlanta Braves in 1999, when we were living in Houston. As a game was seesawing back and forth, with pitchers on both sides failing at their basic task, the arch demon John Rocker of the Braves began to pitch in relief. I really lost it, screaming at the Mets' batters to send one up the middle and decapitate Rocker. The batters either didn't hear me or had other plans, so the only real damage done was the Mets' loss.

This got me to thinking. I'm a basically rational person. What strange urge made me act like a raving loony? So I have toned it down a bit since, but have not yet sworn off spectating altogether. Readers arise and please enlighten me about the true Torah view of this topic, as I am biased.

Archeologists uncover 3500 year old blog entry! - Exodus 'proof'?

2007-01-11T12:50:00.000-05:00

Archeologists report that a recently unearthed 3500 year old papyrus may be the first blog entry in history. “True, the medium is different,” said Professor Nowitt All, “But the essential flavor of random rantings on various topics is easily recognizable as the same as our modern equivalent.” Although some were quick to see in the posting's reference to Hebrews and slavery a corroboration of the Biblical story of the Exodus, the Professor dismisses such claims as those of fundamentalists biased by their beliefs. The Professor claims the papyrus describes the appalling work conditions of an ancient brewer of beer – He Brew – not the Biblical Jews. “Since we know the Bible cannot be literally true”, explained the Professor, “There cannot exist evidence to substantiate its historical narrative, therefore the only objective reading of the text possible is a reference to a brewery.”
The text reads:

…can’t believe you buy this Moses fellow. Look, the Canaanites have gods, the Hittites have gods, everyone around us has kooky gods, but no rational person
believes any of that stuff. I mean, we literally have the technology to lift tons of rock off the ground – I bet thousands of years from now they will wonder how we built those pyramids – we have advances in medicine, math, science, and you guys want to keep the beliefs of the desert age. It’s rational thought that got us those advances, not belief. This Moses does parlor tricks, but where is the evidence? I know he is selling a great story describing our national history that makes everyone feel good, but how does anyone know that stuff is true and not fiction? The fact that not a single pot shard has ever been found that says "Abraham" on it and none of our Egyptian histories mention the guy even though he supposedly visited here doesn't inspire me with confidence. I know the 'proof’ of religious traditions being handed down directly from your great-great grandfathers, but remember, your great-great-great was supposedly Terach, an idol worshipper, and you abandoned that tradition! I know, how could our parents and grandparents lie to us, but the Canaanite and Hittite children say the same thing to justify their belief handed down from their parents– how does anyone know which version is right? The Ephraimites who tried to flee years ago also believed G-d would redeem them, and they ended up perishing in the desert - so much for unjustified belief. We all need myths to sustain us and make a life of hard work meaningful, but don’t confuse myth with reality! I like myths also, especially that Sabbath idea that gets us a day off, but it’s the practice that I enjoy, the -proxy, not the silly –doxy, the beliefs that no one can substantiate. And speaking of work, it seems that Moses bringing up this whole religion thing has just made things worse. No straw, yet we are supposed to make bricks. What kind of benevolent deity would do that to his beloved people, raising everyone’s hopes and then just lowering the boom with more slavery? Just look at the trouble the silly fundamentalists have caused us. Do you think G-d would purposely create a situation where the evidence in front of our eyes - more work, no straw - contradicts the very belief that he wants us to have? Is that a fair test? I t sk t [rest of text is garbled]

Scholars are still working to decipher the remainder of this ancient text.

(Note: Even though this is a montage of different ideas "out there" in various places, I hesitated to post it because of the risk of someone taking personal offense, and my bouncing it off someone else has only slightly reduced my qualms. Parody obviously carries with it more sting than a straight post, but I don't take intellectual disagreement as a license to personally offend anyone. If anyone feels slighted I ask that you anonymously comment [which I will get faster than if you email me during the day] and I will withdraw the post. You may take this as an apology in advance)

Chareidi Insularity and Blogger Emotion

2007-01-04T23:00:00.000-05:00

I'm trying to figure out why many non-Chareidi bloggers react strongly to every headline in the Yated, Jerusalem Post, or Haaretz regarding Chareidi insularity. Okay, let's say that the Chareidi world is moving in the direction of greater insularity. But why the strong reaction? Each to his own, live and let live!

Do people feel compassion for chareidim? Or are they afraid that they might be asked to contribute money to the chareidi community? Perhaps some are insecure about their own choice of lifestyles. These might be concerns, but why the vehement reaction? Why does it appear to bother people who are not members of the community?

The particular issue doesn't make a difference. Yesterday it was the El Al boycott, today it is the Beis Yaakov teachers' training issue. A few months ago it was the blurring by Charedi newspapers of pictures of women on the cover of books. No doubt that there will be at least fifteen more such issues before the end of the year--the particular issue is unimportant, as the internet posts will simply repeat the same ideas. We are obviously talking about prototypical issues, and a prototypical reaction.

Often, readers of blog postings on these issues focus on the language of the posts in question, accusations of “charedi basher” are then hurled, and the discussion doesn’t get to the heart of the issue.

For a moment, though, let's leave the question of what is bothering bloggers , and focus on what one might term the positives and negatives of Chareidi life.

As I see it, living in the American, and particularly the Israeli Chareidi communities involve trade-offs. They negative aspects include (a) the acceptance of a more non-nuanced rejection of secular education and society, (b) a more intense rabbinic authority structure, (c) a more intensely regulated media, and (d) some degree of economic hardship.

All of these items are perceived by outsiders as negative aspects of life. The possible benefits are (a) being able to partake in an unadulterated and unique kind of spiritual life, and (b) possibly taking greater responsibility for the continuance of the Torah nation.

Now these are what I think are benefits as perceived by chareidim, and the negative aspects as perceived by outsiders. An outsider him or herself may feel that they, as well, take great responsibility for the continuance of the Jewish nation while maintaining their own lifestyle. Personally, I think that both groups need each other. But I am talking about conceivable benefits and possible drawbacks.

Presumably, many charedim view this trade-off as worthwhile, and are satisfied with the above reality. Nevertheless, it is equally true that there are at least some charedim who likely are unhappy with the system, and these people are sometimes interviewed in articles on the subject.

It is also possible that with time, the Israeli system will move slightly in the direction of the model of the American Yeshiva World, in terms of being more accepting of advanced vocational training for both men and women, and accepting the value of secular knowledge, including acceptable elements of secular psychology—chochma b’goyim taamin. On the other hand, there is resistance to change. As is known from past experiences, there are conservative, or zealous elements, in the Chareidi world who resist any type of change. No one can therefore predict the future with certainty.

Getting back to what I think bothers people most, I would say that it is the concern that the Israeli Chareidi model might be imported by Western countries. This is an entirely understandable thought, and there is nothing wrong with discussing it respectfully. Certainly, even some Charidim would find it difficult to adjust to the Israeli model.

Is this concern realistic? In think not.

Notwithstanding that the American Yeshivah world, influenced by its more insular factions, appears to be shifting to the Right, I still think that in reality, adopting the Eretz Yisrael model in its entirety is an unlikely occurrence, given the different environments. The fact that the Israeli chareidi community, as per a recent Jewish Observer article, discourages potential Olim who are unable to accept the above trade-offs and “leave their hashkafos back in America”, would seem to show that the differences in the nature of the two communities is indeed still being recognized and respected, at least at the current time.

Perhaps people are concerned that their own communities might be affected by the rightward shift, even if the system in its entirety will not be imported to their areas. What do you think?

To end on a positive note, I think it is good advice, sometimes, to ignore the opinions of others on intra-Orthodox matters, to ignore the claims advanced that, "my group, rabbi, or gadol is better than yours". Let everyone concentrate on their own spiritual goals in life, and stop trying to show that one's own derech is superior to someone else's. We shouldn't feel a need to defend our choices to anyone else either, as long as we follow our personal Rebbe or Rav.

Here is one of my favorite quotes on intra-Orthodox issues, from the end of an article by someone who deals with people from all segments of the Orthodox community:

People, most of all, need to be comfortable with themselves, in their own skin, to comfortably find a place in their community. It is not in the color of their hat. Dr. David Pelcovitz often speaks of the resiliences of people, the inner strength a person has to carry them through difficult times. Dr. Abraham Twerski is renowned for his message on building self-esteem as a most important ingredient to carry a person through life with a positive self-image, an intrinsic belief system that you are good. As long as we're comfortable with whom we are, with what we want to be, we can be in the Center, the Right, Left or anywhere in between. As long as we don't change to be someone or something else we're not ready to be, and whom we don't want to be.

knowledge vs. belief: a tempest in a celestial teapot

2007-01-03T13:12:00.000-05:00

"Yesod hayesodos v’amud hachochmos leyda she'yesh matzuy rishon…" (Rambam, Yesodei haTorah 1:1)

What is the difference between “knowledge” and “belief”? Whether or not the Rambam’s use of “leyda”, to know G-d exists, as opposed to “l’ha’amin”, to believe, is significant is a matter of debate, but to even suggest such a distinction (as many have) presupposes a distinction between the two terms.

Until the 1960’s, most philosophers defined knowledge as JTB – Justified True Belief. Something is termed knowledge, not just belief, if:
P is true;
S believes P to be true;
S is justified in believing P to be true.
While I don’t know if the Rambam subscribed to that definition of knowledge, I do know that at least one philosopher has made an oft-cited argument against religion that seems to at least embellish if not distort that definition, and those who cite him neither defend that embellishment or think it even worth mentioning despite the philosophical Pandora’s box of questions it opens.

Bertrand Russell’s famous celestial teapot argument goes as follows:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Variations on the same theme compare religion with the likes of a theory postulating the existence of invisible pink unicorns (IPU theory) which cannot be disproven because they are invisible. Clearly, an irrefutable proposition does not make reality so.

Without bothering to mention it, Russell has snuck into JTB the added criterion of falsifiability – unless there is a way to disprove a statement, it has no cognitive value, meaning it can never be termed “knowledge”. Unless there is some way to disprove the assertion that a teapot is in orbit, or that G-d exists, or some other dogma, all the justification in the world cannot according to Russell convert these beliefs to knowledge.

Is there really no such thing as knowledge that does not meet the falsifiability test? Most atheists claim that their lack of belief does not make them immoral, just unreligious – undoubtedly, even atheists know “It is wrong to kill”. But here we run into a brick wall, as there is no way such a statement can be disproven either logically or empirically. So is such a statement knowledge or merely belief?

If you are willing to go so far as to say we believe murder is wrong but it is not the same as knowledge, then try this: put your hand in your pocket and pull out your wallet. Most of us would not hesitate to say, “I know my wallet exists”. Yet, such a claim fails the test of falsifiability! Even if I searched the entire world and could not find my wallet, that is not a proof that it does not exist, just that my search has failed.

We all know that murder is wrong and that the wallet before our eyes exists even such knowledge is immutable to tests of falsifiability. In fact, all ethical or existential claims cannot pass the test of falsifiability – all we are left with is a test of verifiability, or judging the strength of the evidence in favor of these statements as a measure of their cognitive value. But no one can fail to recognize that immutability to the falsifiability test does not render these statements false.

Even Karl Popper, one of the great philosopher’s of science who was a strong advocate of the falsifiability test, only used it as a means of demarcating science from non-science, not as a measure of truth or of knowledge. He wrote, “The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth.”

I’m afraid Bertrand Russell’s great proof amounts to nothing more than a tempest in a celestial teapot, proving no more than the fact that existential claims of G-d’s existence are not a scientific theories – a proposition that was never under dispute.

I’m not out to bash anyone over the head with rhetorical fluff in the hopes of winning an argument, so I feel compelled to add that there may be good reasons why you would want to add a test of falsifiabilty or indefeasibility to the standard definition of JTB (it is one way of getting around Gettier’s objection), and good reasons why you may not want to use verifiability alone as your test of what knowledge is. You might certainly draw distinctions between my examples and the analogy to G-d’s existence. But these considerations get into the nitty-gritty of epistemology and probably are beyond my ability to discuss well, or to keep you reading much further.

Which leads me to my final points: If the likes of Dawkins and Harris and others in the jblogsphere and beyond who follow their lead in attacking religion were seriously interested only in the “dispassionate pursuit of truth”, shouldn’t they be the ones delving into this deeper nitty-gritty of epistemology rather than swallowing Russell’s proof uncritically, as if Russell was a prophet of some religious order?

Secondly, I wonder to what degree these posts are worth it. It takes a mild amount of intellectual effort to undo these “proofs” of atheism and expose their assumptions and reasoning. But in the end, no one suddenly becomes an atheist because they read Bertrand Russell, and no one will become a theist from reading my responses (don’t get me wrong - I would be delighted to know these posts do some good : ) Is there any value to “dah mah shetashiv” carried out in the blogsphere? Should we be concerned with so-called "anti-religion" proofs being so accessible and offer a response, or should we ignore the challenge and let the chips fall where they may?

Halakhic Discussions and Poskim Bashing

2007-01-01T22:12:00.000-05:00

A recent article in the Jerusalem Post quotes a doctor who specializes in infertility issues who raised the issue of “Orthodox Infetility” -- i.e. infertility where the woman has a very short cycle and the keeping of Hilchos Niddah with all its chumras can result in difficulty in the woman conceiving. This doctor suggested that the entire Jewish world cease keeping certain chumras related to Hilkhos Niddah, in particular what is know as the Minhag d’Rabbi Zeira.

Now this suggestion has many halakhic problems, which I will not go into here. Suffice it to say that many very prominent poskim and talmidei chachamim, including R Moshe Feinstein, R. Ovadya Yosef and Rav. Y.D. Soloveichik considered and rejected this very hetter for this very purpose.

Furthermore, it is not altogether clear to me that the person suggesting this, not to mention many in the J-Blogosphere who have supported him, even understand all the halakhic parameters.*

The current essay does not address these halakhic intricacies, however. Rather, it addresses what has become a common-place rhetorical device which is trotted out every time a controversial or sensitive halakhic issue comes out. Sooner or later, someone who is desirous of a hetter will say (or blog) something like, “the current poskim are cowards” or “they are fearful of sticking their neck out and advocating a hetter” or “the poskim lack the courage to be mattir” or some variation thereof.

This line of rhetoric was popularized some 30 years ago by a prominent Orthodox academic who claimed to have single-handedly found the solution to the modern-day Agunah problem. The problem was, virtually no poseik nor talmid chacham of any stature agreed – and in fact several vehemently disagreed. His retort – the poskim all really agreed with him, but they were all “afraid” of a negative reaction from the nefarious “right.”

The gemara in Berachos 19a is pertinent:

”One who talks after the biers of Torah scholars {who denigrates them after their death}” What is this? As we learn: He {Akavia ben Mehalalel} would say: we do not give the convert nor freed maidservant to drink {the bitter waters} And the Sages say: we do give to drink. And they said to him {Akavia}: there was a story with Karkemit, a freed maidservant in Yerushalayim, and Shemaya and Avtalyon gave her to drink.

And he {Akavia} said to them {the Sages}: as a dugma they caused her to drink And {as a result} they {the Sages} excommunicated him {Akavia}, and he died in a state of excommunication And the court stoned his coffin {after his death}.

Rashi gives as explanation of dugma -- Akavya was alleging that the reason Shemaya and Avtalyon give this woman to drink was that they were descended from converts, and they had a desire to legitimize and mainstream converts, and so they held as the Sages held.

Amazing! What did Akavia do to deserve excommuncation? He called into question the integrity of two of the Chachmei ha Masorah in paskening a shaylo! That was enough to put him into nidui and stone his coffin after his death!

The charge that poskim are “afraid” to poskein as they believe is correct is a grave act of hotzaas shem ra – for after all, there is an issur of los saguru mipnei ish. Anyone who makes this claim has to explain how these poskim violate this issur.

The charge is also belied by history and common sense. All three of the prominent talmidei chachamim I cited above at one time or another held controversial positions and issued controversial psakim. Indeed, R. Moshe Feinstein was subject to physical threats over his psakim on artificial insemination. They were undeterred from holding as they believed were correct. That being the case, what reason would one have to believe that in some other area – e.g. agunot or hilkhos niddah, they would be any less fearless to paskein as they believed appropriate?

Simply put, the charge as applied to the gedolei ha poskim is utterly bogus and is a rhetorical dodge used to hide weak halakhic arguments.

Now before anyone attempts to give counter-examples, let me cite two examples of reluctance to issue a psak which are legitimate and do happen, although not for the reason charged:

1. Humility – It is a truism that not everyone who is a talmid chacham is on the same level, and certainly not everyone who is a talmid chacham is a gadol ha dor. There are many fine, outstanding talmidei chachamim who certainly learn very well and know how to pasken, yet they defer to those they consider greater than them. This is what in Yiddish used to be called breite pleitzes – broad shoulders. Certain talmidei chachamim, by dint of their outstanding learning and yiras shomayim are deferred to by others.

2. Public Policies Require Broad Acceptance – Certain areas of halakha affect only individuals or small groups of people. Other areas affect the public at large. For example, a determination in the area of agunos and eishes ish has the potential for affecting whether certain families can marry into others. One can easily see that, if one group of poskim were to hold by a hetter in agunos and others did not, that klal yisroel could quickly become split into different camps who cannot marry one another. That is something we simply cannot afford at this point in history.

For that reason, there are poskim who will seek a general consensus in these “public policy” type halakhos because they do not wish to create such a split. That perforce sometimes means not insisting upon all of one’s views, no matter how strongly held.

____________________________________________________________
*Apart from the Minhag d’Rabbi Zeira (which is that even for a tiny speck of blood, a woman must count 7 clean days), there is also (a) a gezeira of Rebbe that every instance of menstrual blood by a woman be treated as safeik niddah/safeik zava and (b) the minhag of the Rema to wait at least five days before a woman can do a hefseik tahara. The din under (a) is even more severe than the Minhag d’Rabbi Zeira and cannot be undone without a beis din greater than that who established it. If you do away with the Minhag d’Rabbi Zeira but keep the gezeira of Rebbe then, practically, you have helped very few women with infertility by OTOH, the minhag of the Rema is more lenient, and indeed the poskim do discuss how one can be lenient on that minhag where there are fertility issues.

Balance and Extremism in Judaism

2006-12-27T21:58:00.000-05:00

The issue of extremism and moderation is being discussed in the comments section of the previous post, and I would like to dedicate a post of my own to the subject. I would divide the topic into the following parts:

Cosmic Balance
Personal Avodah
Communal Decsions
Tolerance For Others
Bloggers and Extremism

Cosmic Balance

There is tension and balance in the physical universe. Hashem provides balance between opposing forces in nature, and regulates the movement of ocean waves, gravitational forces, and motions of the planets. Perhaps this can be the meaning in the blessing of Yotzeir Ohr, which speaks of light and darkness, and then mentions peace.

Rabbi Shimon Leiberman writes about the Divine attribute of Tiferes:

Tiferet then is not a "compromise." A compromise has no overriding vision of integration. Rather, when two sets of horns are implacably locked, one whittles down enough of each to remove the danger of mutual destruction. Tiferet is, rather, a long and more unifying picture which gives each set of horns their rightful place, so that they are no longer locked in combat.

This is why it is called tiferet, "beauty," for beauty is always attained by integrating elements and playing them off against each other. Black and white are opposites; their proper integration creates beauty. Beauty does not adjudicate contrasts and turn everything gray; rather, beauty integrates both black and white into a picture of depth.

Personal Avodah

On the Avodas Hashem level, one should be as passionate as possible in serving Hashem. The Mesilas Yesharim criticizes those who would be happy with an average seat in Olam Haba. Aim high, and one will end up at least in the middle.Passion notwithstanding, nuance and balance is crucial in balancing tendencies, as well as in decision making.

Concerning tendencies and character traits, the Rambam in Hilchos Deios(1st chapter) writes that the middle points are the proper place to be--haDerech haYesharah he middah beinones sh'bchol deah v'deah. The Rambam derives this obligation from the pasak of v'halachta b'derachav, which Chazal tell us is imitatio dei . The Rambam cites Avroham as well as having followed this. The Rambam, however, makes exceptions for humility and anger(2nd perek, ibid).

Concerning decision making, the Mesilas Yesharim devotes a chapter to the topic called Mishkal Hachassidus. From Peninim al Hatorah by Rabbi A. Leib Scheinbaum, linked here :

A chasid is defined as one who goes beyond the letter of the law, who truly loves Hashem and is not satisfied with merely getting by. He always endeavors to do more. Mishkal hachassidus focuses on weighing one’s actions, especially those that are laudatory, to be sure that what appears to be a positive gesture is truly what it seems. The yetzer hora, evil-inclination, is crafty and has the ability to paint a sin as a mitzvah. What begins as a righteous deed can sometimes end as a tragedy. The classic case is the reaction of Bnei Kehas to transporting the Mishkan. What should have been noble, lofty and honorable was transformed into a chillul Hashem, desecration of Hashem’s Name. Had they weighed their good intentions, it would be apparent that Hashem’s will could not be fulfilled by bickering and in-fighting.

In his inimitable manner, Horav Avraham Pam, zl, dedicates a shmuess, ethical discourse, in The Pleasant Way, to this malady. He first cites a number of narratives in which the father of the Mussar movement, Horav Yisrael Salanter, zl, demonstrates the importance of thinking before one acts piously. In these instances, to act piously would have meant taking advantage of someone else. The Rosh HaYeshivah then concentrates on some practical issues to which,regrettably, many could relate.

Hachnosas orchim, welcoming guests to one’s home, is one of the benchmarks of the Jewish People which we inherited from our Patriarch Avraham Avinu. Yet, the husband and father should take into consideration that he also has a wife and children at home. His wife also puts in a hard day, and his children would like his attention at the meal. The number of guests and their frequency should be considered. Another example is that when the Chafetz Chaim had guests at his home on Friday night, he would first recite Kiddush, make Hamotzi, eat, and only then, after his guests had eaten, did he sing Shalom Aleichem. He felt that his guests, who ere usually poor Jews who had not yet eaten, should eat. The Heavenly Angels could wait for their Sholom Aleichem.

Reciting Kaddish for a parent is a halachah. It is a merit for both the parent and the son. To contend in shul about who and when one says Kaddish is not only demeaning for the son, it also detracts from the parent’s merit. It is probably a greater zchus, merit, for the parent if his son is mevater, concedes, and does not compete for the Kaddish.

While rejoicing with a chassan and kallah at their wedding is a great mitzvah, those who have young children at home should not do so at the expense of the grandparents, who are usually the babysitters. Even when the babysitter is a teenager who can use the money, she still has to go to school the next day. In addition, bachurim who insist on dancing into the wee hours of the morning should consider the fact that the parents of the chassan and kallah areundoubtedly exhausted and would like to conclude the festivities.

Last, is sholom bayis, matrimonial harmony. Rav Pam describes a scenario in which a young wife prepares a special dinner for her husband. I might add that she, herself, has put in a full day at two different jobs, so that she can support him in kollel. Supper is called for 7:00PM. At 8:00PM, her husband comes home. He probably has forgotten about using his cell phone for something as insignificant as notifying his wife that he was occupied with a mitzvah, so that he would be late coming home. Is this a mitzvah, or is it a lack of sensitivity?

Communal Decisions

In Burning Down Our Own Neighborhood, Rabbi Rosenblum writes:

Using one's sechel requires matching means to goals, and recognizing that improper means can damage, sometimes irreparably, the best of causes. Even when the goal is achieved the damage caused by poorly chosen means can sometimes outweigh any possible gain...

Another aspect of sechel is the recognition that almost any course in life involves balancing competing values. In the case of the parade, for instance, the necessity of protesting the parade had to be weighed against the impact on the image of Torah in the world from the means chosen to make that protest. In addition, there is almost always a balance between short-term goals and long-range consequences. The capacity to keep both in mind is the hallmark of a person guided by his sechel.

Tolerance for Others

This applies both on the community and individual level, and is a challenge in today's splintered world.On both communal and individual levels, there is always tension between maintaining ahavas Yisrael and fidelity to Truth, or hashkafic purity. There is a good shiur from Rabbi Mayer Schiller on this topic which can be downloaded here.

On the organizational level, leaders and organizations have to make decisions between effective rebuke and setting limits, versus the possibility of pushing people away from Orthodoxy, or a particular segment thereof, and I have written about that here. This applies to individuals as well, but an organization also has the very practical question of how diverse a group can be included in one umbrella organization.

The following gemara is sometimes used in connection with defining the parameters of inclusiveness:

The Gemera states(Sotah 47A):

l'olam tehei smol doche v'ymin mekareves, a person should always push away the sinner with the left (generally, the weaker) hand, but hold him close with the right (generally, the stronger) hand. Not like Elisha who pushed away Gechazi with two hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Perachiah who pushed away his student with both hands.

At the most recent Agudah convention, one of the speakers defined the purview of the organization. While stating that "we can not always be engaged in y'min mkareves because the truth we hold sacred most forever be upheld" , it was also noted that "neither do we want to be busy too much with s'mol docheik, because ultimately, it is not very productive", and that " we will never be yotzei for those who think us to be too little imbued with kannos".

Bloggers and Extremism

Is there a concept of a collective Jblogosphere which marches towards a positive goal, or is it a collection of disparate individuals?
What is the obligation of tochacha , if any for bloggers?
Is extremism in the Blogosphere in either direction good or bad for the blogosphere on a whole, for Judaism, and for people's individual interests?
Should there be things that bloggers agree to disagree on, or does that take away all the fun of blogging? Does it depend on the site?

I leave you with these qustions.

science, religion, and the dispassionate search for truth

2006-12-27T15:55:00.000-05:00

Sam Harris: "The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower."

Given the choice of religious closed-mindedness vs. the dispassionate search for truth, who would not favor the latter over the former! The problem is this portrait of science exists only as a figment of Harris' and his followers' imaginations, a fairy-tale created to justify their attacks on the straw-man of religious belief Harris' creates. What is striking when reading Harris even more than how little he knows about religion (one would have thought that a "dispassionate consideration of evidence" might demand that one study theology before writing a vicious attack on its tenents) is how little his philosophy of science corresponds with reality.

From a summary of Thomas Kuhn's “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”:

Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate…
…As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."

Rigid thought, conservative adherence to a paradigm even in the face of contrary evidence, resistance to change – is this the "dispassionate consideration of new evidence" that Harris so admires? The history of science reveals a stubbon adherence to doctrine that rivals...well, that Harris would say rivals religion. In Kuhn's own words:

Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves…And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

on language and lomdus: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, lashon kodesh, and the Brisker derech

2006-12-26T16:22:00.000-05:00

I don’t want to take anything away from Baruch’s encouragement to avoid jargon and speak in plain English, but I think there is also something to be said for the value of jargon. One of the prominent theories debated in the field of linguistics is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or linguistic relativity. The theory states that language is not just a medium through which we express our thinking, but language itself shapes our thoughts, experiences, and perception of reality. Sapir wrote, “We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation…The words in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same worlds with different labels attached.”

Based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it becomes easier to understand the importance of the Hebrew language and its designation as “lashon kodesh” (see Rambam, Shmos ch 30). Language has an influence on thought; only a holy language could be the vehicle that gives rise to holy thought. It is tempting to read Rashi in this week’s parsha in this light as well – when revealing himself to his brothers, Yosef stresses that it is “his mouth” which is addressing them, which Rashi takes to mean that Yosef spoke to them in lashon kodesh. Perhaps it was not the words themselves which were important in that dialogue, but Yosef's revelation that his worldview was one shaped by lashon kodesh and not a secular language.

Coming closer to our own time, every field has its jargon which shapes its contours, and I doubt that Torah learning is any different. The conceptual methodology of the Brisker derech would probably be difficult to convey without the specialized terminology of gavra and cheftza, sibah and siman, ma’aseh and chalos, tzvei dinim, etc. R’ Chaim brought about not just a revolution in analysis, but a revolution in language. A sefer like the Birchas Shmuel could only have been written after the proper terminology to express the conceptual distinctions of R’ Baruch Ber already existed, but would not have been possible in an earlier historical era.

While R’ Chaim Brisker’s derech has become a staple of the yeshivishe learning, the derech of the Rogatchover is almost neglected. R’ Menachem Kasher’s works elucidating the Rogatchover’s writings do not offer lengthy conceptual expositions; rather, they read like a lexicon of terms, with gemaras drawn from all over shas to illustrate the terminology. Our appreciation of the Rogatchover is lacking not because his conceptual insight was so far beyond R’ Baruch Ber's or other great achronim, but because we lack mastery of the language needed to properly think in his derech.

I have no problem with translations and elucidations as a means to grasp the basic texts of Torah. However, I think one’s development as a talmid chacham depends on a mastery of certain terms and jargon not just as a means to express ideas in shorthand form, but because the terminology one uses ultimately has an impact on one's thought processes. At the same time we should be wary of jargon stifling creativiy and pushing thinking into well established boxes - must every sugya find sits focus in a chakira with a two dinim resolution? In the hammer's world everything else is a nail; if our set of language tools consists only of verbal hammers, you can be sure all we will find is nails to strike and no other problems.

On a Lighter Note: Facing the Ontological Realities of Lomdus

2006-12-25T12:44:00.000-05:00

See Chaim B's post, and discussion there, to be enlightened concerning the different categories of, and the ontological aspects of chazakos(halachic presumptions).

For those who have avoided, or slept through Philosophy 101, see here for the definition of ontology.

This reminds me of a story:

A talmid of RYBS Z’tl was speaking about two years ago and used the word “teleological”. I think he realized that much of the audience(including myself), had heard the word, but had no idea what he was talking about. So he joked, “I don’t either know what it means, but the Rav used to use it, so I am as well!”

Anyhow, I think all would agree that it's far more important to know the definitions, purviews, and applications of the various types of chazakos, but I guess it also helps knowing philosophical jargon, if only to be able to understand what some people are talking about.

It also should be noted that hasbarah(explaining) is a function of havanah(understanding). My chavrusah never let me get away with, "I understand it, but I can't explain it". So if philosophical terminology aids, abets, assists or facilitates greater clarity and precision in comprehension, explanation, or, to use Artscrollese, elucidates the Talmud, then I say: go for the philosophical and legal jargon and skip the yeshivishe reid !

Indeed, some of the richer yeshivishe terminology may also quite possible obscure, muddle and seriously obfuscate, rather than clarify, simplify, and illuminate one's thinking and explanations to others. In such cases, there may not be such an advantage in yeshivishe over philosophical and legal language.

I never really liked, for example, the following dialogue:

Question: "Why can't we apply this reasoning in Case A as well? "

Answer: "Case A is a metziyus !" (or shall we say, "Case A is an ontological reality").

So it may be best to translate yeshivish or lomdishe terms to everyday English, whether or not one avoids, shuns, eschews, and otherwise keeps a distance from philosophical and legal nomenclature, technical terms, or specialized language not used in ordinary conversation.

One of my chavrusah's astutely observed and pointed out, however, that if one trains one's self to think using such language, then using either yeshivish terminology or (l'havdil), philosophical and legal language, may indeed represent clarity of thought and comprehension. The only challenge for such a person , then, is to communicate such thinking to others using ordinary English. However, a good rebbe or baal maasbir, should have no problem flawlessly switching back and forth between, Yeshivish, ordinary English, and legalese and philosophical terminology.

Note(nichtav b'tzido) : None of the above should be construed in any way as denigrating, degrading, defaming, casting aspersions on, or to use the vernacular--being mevatel, maching aveck, not being goreis, Yeshivish, one of my favorite "shprachs".

Frum Community and Children's Safety

2006-12-24T18:25:00.000-05:00

There has been much discussion in recent years on the issue of sexual abuse and the frum community. The Orthodox Jewish community is a subset of the general population, and despite the community's strong points, it is not immune fron the ills of general society.

I wish to let readers know of two positive developments:

A) The Dov Hikind show, hosted by Talkline Communications, is a New York City radio show which airs on 570AM, from 11.00 PM-12 AM on Motzoie Shabbos(Saturday nights). It is hosted by New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and deals with issues that are of interest to the frum and the general communities, such as situation in Eretz Yisrael, local and national politics, as well as various communal issues, including drug abuse, teens "off the derech" and other important social issues.

The show has interesting range of guests, including syndicated columnists and various professionals, and it has a large range of listeners from all parts of the Orthodox Jewish community, as well as some from the non-frum and non-Jewish communities. There is a also a segment at the end of the hour for listeners to call in.

On Motzoie Shabbos, December 16th, Assemblyman Hikind interviewed a therapist from Ohel's Children's Home and Family Services who specializes in child molestation. This guest discussed the steps parents need to take to keep their children safe.

Assemblyman Hikind will be doing another show the coming week(December 30th), and will have a panel of professionals on this important topic.

B) Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz is creating a "Bright Beginnings Program". See the e-mail below, which I have italicized. Rabbi Horowitz has posted on his blog about the general subject, and plans to post later in the month about the specifics of his program, as indicated in the e-mail below.

If anyone has any ideas, for the future, on how to insure the safety of children, please feel free to share them here. However, I ask you not to focus on any specific cases or allegations which have occurred. There are other mediums, both blogs and offline, where such discussions already take place, and I would like to keep the current Mishmar post focused on constructive suggestions for the future.

Thank you for your understanding.

----

The following is the e-mail I received about Rabbi Horowitz's new program:

Dear Readers:

Since my "Keeping Our Children Safe From Sexual Abuse" column (click here for link) was posted, I received many emails from compassionate people looking to become part of the solution and help fund the abuse-prevention booklet that I wrote about at the end of my column. In fact, an editor who works in graphic design even offered his services to this project pro bono.

Quite a number of people requested that I create a venue for those who wish to make donations to this particular project (the abuse-prevention booklet) and/or for those who wish to fund some of the projects that I have been writing about in my columns over the past months and years.

To honor these requests and to help actualize many of my dreams for the enhancement of educational and social opportunities for Jewish children around the world, I am pleased to inform my readers that I am initiating the "Bright Beginnings Program." (Within 30 days, I hope to post a mission statement for Bright Beginnings on my website and list details regarding some of the programs that I would like to move from concept to reality.)

In order to provide prudent financial management and oversight, I asked two highly respected askanim (lay leaders), Mr. Barry Ray (Chicago) and Mr. Mendel Zilberberg, (Brooklyn), to serve as trustees and Co-Chairman of the Bright Beginnings Program. Michael Stein, CPA, a partner at the accounting firm of Brand Sonnenschine LLP, (New York, New York) has graciously volunteered his services pro bono and will be serving as Treasurer of Bright Beginnings.

In order to provide financial reporting and transparency to current and prospective donors, Mr. Stein will be posting interim quarterly financial statements of Bright Beginnings on my website, and will be engaging the services of an outside accounting firm to conduct an annual, year-end audit, which will also be posted on my website.

Bright Beginnings will be a division of The Center for Jewish Family Life, a 501-c3 that I founded several years ago to support Jewish families in the quest to raise self-confident, well-adjusted children. Bright Beginnings will operate as a separate entity and 100% of your donation will go to funding its programs.

We welcome those who wish to contribute to the publication and (free) dissemination of the sexual abuse prevention booklet to send their contributions to:

Bright Beginnings
c/o Mr. Michael Stein
377 Broadway, 9th floor
N.Y., N.Y. 10013

Please make checks payable to Bright Beginnings and indicate on the stub that the funds are dedicated for the abuse prevention booklet, should you wish them to be designated for that purpose.

Thank you for your interest and may Hashem grant us our most fervent wish - that all His children realize their fullest potential.

Yakov Horowitz

Touch Goeth Both Ways

2006-12-20T21:37:00.000-05:00

Beyond BT, links an article discussing the election of Jason Bedrick, a 23 year old Orthodox Jew and Lubavitcher Chassid elected to the New Hampshire State Legislator. This is quite an accomplishment for New Hampshire, which is home to fewer than 10 Orthodox Jewish families and has a population that is about one percent Jewish, according to a source quoted in the article.

Parenthetically, are these figure correct for Orthodoxy in the entire state of New Hamshire? For one thing, summer vacationers don't count ! See here and here.

Representative Bedrick is a proud Jew, and the article discusses the usual issues facing Orthodox politicians, such as Shabbos observance and kosher food. The article also mentions that Bedrick will not shake hands with women. I am not getting involved in what a person should do when faced with such a situation in a business or professional setting--consult your local Orthodox rabbi for guidance on this serious issue!

But what is most amazing is that Bedrick actually received support from several members of the Salem Women's Club, who were instrumental in his victory at the polls! In fact, Bedrick won the recount in his Windham and Salem district, which consists of a population of 4,500, by six votes.

Perhaps the fact that New Hampshire historically had a religious character, has something to do with such respect shown today towards religious values. The Salem Witch Trials, though, were obviously a negative manifestation of religious belief in New England. In Salem, Massachusetts today(not to be confused with Salem, New Hampshire, Jason Bedrick's district) interest in the witch trials feed the tourist industry.

The article discusses the role the women's club played in his election:

Barbara Elliot, co-president of the club, and several of her female friends voted for Bedrick after he wrote them an e-mail explaining why he does not shake hands with women.

"After they read this, my girlfriends understood it was not because he did not like women. It was because of his religion. They changed their mind and they voted for him," Elliot said, adding she would be proud to have Bedrick as a son. "I definitely got him his five votes there."
It appears from the quotations below that Bedrick is explaining the issue of handshaking to women who might perceive the issue as an insult to women, and that is perhaps why he expresses the issue from a feminine perspective:

“My faith out of respect for women does not allow contact between unrelated men and women,” said Rep. Jason Bedrick, 23, R-Windham. He said he explains this on a daily basis to female colleagues who reach out their hands to him.

Usually, that’s the end of the conversation, he says, but sometimes, when he senses the woman isn’t convinced, he adds: “If every man in the world were to keep his hands to himself, would it be a better world for women or a worse world for women?”

In truth however, touch goeth both ways, and the issue should not be phrased solely in terms of respecting women. Regarding physical contact between genders in general, the halacha is completely egalitarian; the prohibition, when applicable, applies equally to both parties. The issue of physical contact between genders, if one puts it in terms of respect, is as much as about respecting men as it is about respecting women! Should a man whose hand is rejected by a woman feel that men are inferior? In terms of respect, maybe the woman is respecting him?

As the first of the articles linked below points out:

Strictly observant Jewish women also do not touch men, so the prohibition clearly does not confer "untouchable" status on one sex or another. Rather it proscribes physical contact between sexes equally.

Perhaps Jason Bedrick does mention this point as well in his encouters.

I can see that there might be a need, regarding the the essence of the concept of mikvah and tahras hamishpocha, to explain that the halacha has nothing to do with seeing women as inferior. And I can also understand that in some cases, the status of the relationship being forbidden or permissable, originates with the women's status(eg, eishes ish and niddah versus incestual relationships). However, in actuality, as far as the mutual issur( prohibition) of physical contact which takes effect between both sexes, there is no need to emphasize either gender, as the issue is the status of the relationship and the mutual contact between two people.

See articles linked below, the first three of which make the point that physical contact in general, and handshaking in particular, have nothing to do with favoring one gender over the other. The first three of the articles below were written in response to the infamous "teshuvah" of the Ethicist, who erred grievously in misunderstanding this point.

See link here, here, here and here.

Good Bye Blogs

2006-12-19T03:16:00.000-05:00

Well, this is it.

Really.

I sense that the J-blogosphere is headed in, generally, the wrong direction, and there isn't much I can do to stop that. R' Gil Student likes to say - "Just read the good blogs!" That's good advice, but it only works to a point. All of the blogs are intertwined, and the overall Mahalach is not one that I am comfortable with.

It is also quite the time waster.

Additionally, there is BE"H a very good chance that we will be moving to Eretz Yisrael in the summer, and I won't have internet access there anyway. I might as well start preparing for the spiritual Aliyah sooner rather than later.

So I'm giving my password to Jak Black and he's going to change it for me. And that'll be it.

I am very grateful to my fellow Mishmarites in joining this group blog, and hope it grows in leaps and bounds, making a Kiddush in the process, with some alligator cake. I mean, a Kiddush Hashem.

Kol Tuv.

Difference Between Segulos and Avoiding Cheeseburgers

2006-12-18T19:07:00.000-05:00

The title of this post is taken from part of the discussion following Chaim B's post on the topic of advertising segulos(omens).

Personally, I believe that we should give the highest respect, and indeed cherish chachmas hanistar(Jewish mysticism). Nevertheless, one might legitimately ask, if specific aspects of our society, like the media and advertising, need to project a more balanced image of what the essentials of Yahadus are.

Do you think the arguable sensationalizing of segulos in the media is a positive thing? Perhaps it's not sensationalism at all, but merely legitimate advertising. There is after all, by definition, a sensationalist aspect in all advertising.

Feel free to direct your comments to Chaim B's post, to consolidate conversation in one location.

Shabbos Chanukah Calorie Count

2006-12-17T03:13:00.000-05:00

(From Erev Shabbos to Melaveh Malka)

3 Sufganiyot
4 2x2 in. squares of alligator cake
1 mid-size slice chocolate babka
7 slices homemade Challah
2 2x2x3 in. pieces potato kugel
1 can coke regular
1 chicken soup with Osem soup nuts
3 slices pizza
1 mid-size portion of cholent
5 thin slices corned beef
2 thin slices smoked turkey
3 shots of scotch
1 dill pickle
1 serving cucumber salad
1 serving cole slaw
1 serving Israeli salad
3 slices gefilte fish with chrain
1 roast chicken (drumstick and thigh)

Oy.

The Danger and Tragedy of Neturei Karta

2006-12-14T21:30:00.000-05:00

Neturei Karta has been in the news again, this time, regarding their participation in the Teheran Holocaust denial conference. Earlier this fall, a CBS film showed Jews in charedi garb embracing the Iranian president when he visited New York. Understandably, this embarrassed Jews everywhere, and desecrated G-d's name.

Interestingly, Neturei Karta provides a means unity, something that both a Reconstructionist Jew and Satmar chasid may both agree upon. Obviously, the reasons for both of their mutual condemnations stems from very different outlooks on life.

Besides the embarrassment, the group is traitorous. In the words of the Agudath Israel statement released today, "the group is not only deeply misguided and misleading of the public but dangerous to the true interests of the Jewish People."

There needs to be condemnation, which thankfully we have seen in the past from the entire charedi spectrum. In addition, effective action needs to be taken to stop them. See this link.

Some have referred to the group as a rodef, quoting at least one gadol to that effect. Currently, however, that may not be the best focus of our conversation.

First of all, it should be noted that a rodef needs to be stopped, not unnecessarily killed(see Rambam, Rotzeach V’shmiras Hanefesh, first perek). Also, especially after Yigal Amir, such language may be irresponsible. Without Torah guidance, declaring someone to be a rodef could lead to the Wild West, as I indicate below.

Neturei Karta need be shown firmness, but ultimately they need professional help. A few months ago, I remember reading in the American Yated, a letter stating, "let them go back to Iran or to Ramallah". I agree with a reader who subsequently criticized that response. Yes, from a rhetorical perspective, we can ask them why they don't live with their dear friends Reb Yassir or Mr. Ahmadinejad, yimach shemom. But to imply that they should go to Iran in order to be harmed is not a proper response.

The problem of Neturei Karta is not their philosophical views on the Medinah. As far as I am concerned, a person is entitled to believe what they want about the State of Israel and/or the Holocaust, whether it is the shittah of Rav Kook or that of the Satmar Rebbe, both zicrhrei tzaddikim livracha--as well as anywhere in between those two poles. Neturei Karta is entitled to go further than the Satmar position, and believe that only immediately dismantling Israel can spare a future Holocaust, G-d forbid.

However, if we grant them the right to their opinion, what does one respond to Neturei Karta? They believe that the State imminently endangers the Jewish nation, and accordingly, they must reach out to Iranians, instead of praying to Hashem to resolve things in his own way. If I believe that XYZ is dangerous, what am I supposed to do, if everyone else is misguided? What if Neturei Karta compares themselves to Zeev Jabotinsky in the 1930's, and believes that they are the only ones to know that the earth is burning under their feet, that either you liquidate the State or the State will liquidate you ? What if everyone else is wrong?

The answer is that there is a concept of a community.

Neturei Karta must take into consideration the views of the rest of klal Yisrael. The Jewish people, like any other nation, can not exist in disunity. The Chinuch(496) states that this is the reason why we follow the majority even when “right is left and the left is right”. Were each person to follow his own halachic opinion, this would disrupt the Yahadus, cause disunity, and destroy the Jewish nation entirely.

Even in exile, there is a concept of Jewish nationalism. Every person is entitled to open their own shtible(small synagogue) in which to pray, whether in Williamsburg or in Scarsdale, but a nation can not exist like the Wild West.

The Altalena Affair, the assassinations of Dr. Jacob Israel de Haan, PM Yitzchak Rabin and Dr. Chaim Arlosoroff (there is disagreement concerning the latter) were all murders, obviously had no Halachic basis, and were caused because one individual or group thought that a drastic action was necessary to save many lives.

Even if the Zionist leadership, for example, at the time "paskened" that Dr. de Haan was a rodef because his negotiating threatened the Jewish State, rodef is not something which can be applied by everyone on his own, lest the situation resemble the Wild West

So too, even if Neturei Karta believes that the State of Israel has the status of a rodef, they may not act on their own. Neturei Karta is entitled to take its case titled Neturei Karta vs. The Jewish People to a unified beis din, perhaps consisting of representatives from Chasidim, Litvish, Sephardim, and yes, Mizrachim, but they then must agree to abide by its ruling.

I would end by quoting from the statement Agudah released today. I was happy that a clear statement was issued, and I trust many will agree with me that this is a proper step to take. The above, of course, are my own thoughts, which bloggers will either agree or disagree with, but I think that the language of the statement can serve as a guide for responsible condemnation and for discussion of the issue.

There should be no need to state the following, but to avoid any misconceptions in the media or among members of the public, Agudath Israel of America proclaims strongly and unequivocally that the visibly Jewish men who regularly appear publicly with virulent anti-Semites and claim to represent Jewish Orthodoxy not only do not represent anyone but themselves but are a disgrace to the Jewish people.

Most recently, they presented themselves at the much and properly vilified Holocaust denial “conference” in Teheran, where widely-disseminated photographs captured the pitiful spectacle of their greeting and shaking hands with Iran’s demonic president. Neither their professed determination to protect the interests of Jews nor their haredi garb can obscure the fact that all they accomplish is to offer succor and support to people who eagerly wish to do grave harm to Jews.

There are many groups within the Orthodox community, and they represent widely differing positions on the concept of political and religious Zionism. All responsible Orthodox groups, however, have condemned the group at issue in no uncertain terms. Agudath Israel joins in that condemnation and declares that the group is not only deeply misguided and misleading of the public but dangerous to the true interests of the Jewish People.

Rav Shimshon Pincus on Insularity

2006-12-14T17:27:00.000-05:00

An excerpt from "Nefesh Shimshon - Iggerot U'Maamarim", pg. 50:

"The Rambam writes (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:6): ' All these matters are applicable only when the Jews are in exile amongst the Nations, or the hand of the non-Jews is in control over the Jews, but at a time that the hand of the Jews is in power over them, we may not leave idolators amongnst us. And even if he dwells temporarily, or is passing from one place to another for commerce, he shall not pass through our Land, until he accepts the Seven Noahide Laws, as it states 'They shall not dwell in your Land', even temporarily'.

This is as understood at face value, that when the Jews were in control there was a "Passport check" at the border crossing, like today, and without a "visa" one could not enter, and any non-Jew who was not a Ger Toshav would not enter for even a short while. See there, that the Raavad disagrees, whereas according to the Rambam it is one of the Taryag Mitzvos.

And based on the simple understanding of the Mitzvah - not L'Halachah, rather the (deeper) understanding of the matter - this dictates that one should not have a radio in his house, even if only to hear the news, or a newspaper which tells us about the actions of the Nations of the world, even if not the decadent among them, just to hear generally about news happening in the world, like to hear the words of world leaders and the like, or their activities in the development of science and technology - for the command of the Torah is that the Jewish People should dwell a nation alone, concentrating on their own affairs, and they should not have any contact with the (non observant of the Seven Noahide Laws) non-Jew, even as a temporary dweller; and it is a fact that within the walls of one's home, the Jew is in control. And pay close attention to this, for this is not just an area of extra piety, but the simple understanding of one of the 613 commandments."

I'm not sure I'm quite ready (yet?) to go that far, personally, in insulating myself, but I cannot help but wonder:

1) Could the reprehensible behavior of the hooligans on that #2 bus have happened if we were truly insular?

Consider:
a) There would be less to contend with in terms of the influences of the non-Jewish (and Jewish irreligious) media and advertisement objectifying of women,and so the attitudes would be more in line with that of Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz or Rav Shach, who rode a bus which was not Mehadrin. There would be no need for this kind of thing as a way of pushing back against the torrent of decadent external influence.

b) Spitting and acting in a way which we might call "Like a bunch of drunk Goyim" would be unthinkable in an insular Jewish society, where the Rav's authority was (truly) law.

2) What would happen if we presented this (not just physical security) as a reason to expel the non-Jews from the Land of Israel - we want to be more insular, more 'Chareidi'! - to the rank and file Religious Zionist?

Seems to be simple P'shat in the Rambam...

Extremism, Commitment Ceremonies, and Effective Rebuke

2006-12-14T00:06:00.000-05:00

Since there is discussion on Mishmar and elsewhere about the zealotry of extremist elements in the charedi community, I wish to reflect on the concept of effective tochacha, or rebuke. The connection is obvious: acting violently, or in an anti-social way is done to protest acts of evil. However, upon reflection, such conduct is seriously flawed even on its own terms.

Before considering any course of action, one needs to identify what one is trying to accomplish. Is the purpose to influence the sinner? If so, the rebuke needs to be done effectively.

On the other hand, the purpose of protests may be either to show that one is not complicit and does not agree with the evil being committed, or alternatively, to actually prevent the act in question. Here as well, there are factors to weigh, which would prevent, say, setting fires to trash bins in the streets of Jerusalem.

However, I wish to focus on the previous goal of protesting, namely, to effectively fulfill the commandment of tochacha.

As Rashi discusses in parshas Devarim, from our earliest history, we observe that tochacha needed to be administered in an effective way. Moshe Rabbeinu learned this from Yaakov Avinu(Metsudah translation) :

This teaches that he admonished them only shortly before his death. From whom did he learn this? From Yaakov--- For Yaakov admonished his sons only shortly before his death. He said, "Reuvein, my son, I will tell you why I did not admonish you during all these years; because I did not want you to desert me and go to join my brother Eisov.

There are four reasons why one whould not admonish a person until shortly before one's death:

1) so that he does not admonish him again and again

2) so that his fellow not be ashamed when he sees him, etc., as it is taught in Sifre.

Similarly, Yehoshua admonished the Bnei Yisroel only shortly before his death, and so Shmuel, as it is said, "Behold testify against me," and so Dovid admonished his son Shlomo, [shortly before his death.]

The other two reasons mentioned in the Sifre (not quoted in Rashi) are:

3) So that the sinner does not bear a grudge against him

4) so that he does not defend his innocence belligerently, leading to altercation.

Moving further in our history, we find Rav Tarfon wondering if anyone in his generation was even capable of giving Tochah effectively(Erchin 16b). Yet, the Rambam, gives guidelines for proper rebuke in the sixth chapter of Hilchos Deos.

Significantly, the Rambam tells us that it must be clear that the sinner realizes that the rebuker has his best interest in mind. This may mean establishing a positive relationship between the two.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky uses the above Rambam to explain why Yaakov refers to the strangers he met at the well as "my brothers"(achai), a term used for people who one already knows and recognizes(see pesukim quoted by R. Yaakov).

Rav Yaakov explains based on the Midrash quoted by Rashi, that Yaakov rebuked the people he met at the well regarding their work ethic. Rav Yaakov says that because Yaakov Avinu wanted his rebuke to be effective, he first needed to establishe a relationship with the strangers, and he did this by referring to them as "my brothers". Once this initial positive connection was established, he could then offer tochacha in an effective manner.

I imagine that Orthodox organizations struggle with their task of offering effective censure. Ill-advised statements issued against heterodox movements may cause more harm than good.

In the RCA statement issued last week ("Response to Rabbinical Assembly's Decisions Regarding Ordination of Gays and Lesbians, and "Commitment Ceremonies"), it noted that:

This decision represents yet another significant step in the further estrangement of the Conservative movement from Jewish law (halachah) and tradition. Homosexual behavior is a clear and unambiguous biblical prohibition. The attempts to formulate halachic license or creative interpretation to permit prohibited behavior should not mislead anyone committed to traditional Judaism, into thinking that there can be any permissibility to homosexual activity, whether by rabbis or laypersons. And thus, to permit those who openly proclaim their non-adherence to Torah law, to assume positions of rabbinic leadership, is an entirely regrettable step.

However, it also used words like "great sadness", " we are also saddened" and "regrettably, these decisions will in the end serve to further deepen the schisms within the Jewish people".

While Agudah's statement, as I've seen on the internet, was a stronger one, it also was carefully balanced.

Thus, it referring to the Conservative movement's decision as an “an abandonment of all pretense of fealty to Judaism”, and stated:

that a movement claiming to uphold the Jewish religious tradition can arrogate to stand halachic Judaism on its head is tragic. It will no doubt cheer those who place contemporary mores above the Jewish mandate, but in the end, it seals the fate of a movement long mired in muddle and malaise.

However, it ended on an encouraging note:

While every Jew is precious in the eyes of Heaven… and while some of us may face more difficult challenges than others as we strive to live by the Torah’s prescriptions, that striving is the very essence of what it means to be a Jew committed to Judaism.

I would end by noting that bloggers may perhaps learn from these organizations a thing or two about the need for carefully crafting one's words in order to more effectively demonstrate points.

Chareidi Violence

2006-12-13T17:06:00.000-05:00

A great number of commentators from all points in the spectrum have written about the recent brutal attack on a woman riding an early morning bus to the Kosel. I would like to add my two cents to the brouhaha, as it seems to me that nobody has struck the nail on the head in terms of identifying the root of the problem.

Before I do that, however, a few general remarks about some of the erroneous commentary I’ve seen already. First, despite the surface similarities, this incident really has little in common with Rosa Parks, and the comparisons only serve to cloud the issue with vague emotions. Yes, she was a woman asked to find another seat on a bus. But the one who asked her to move was motivated by legitimate religious concerns, even if things spiraled out of control, and regardless of whether or not the bus was really “mehadrin.” If we’re going to give in to the temptation of the “wink wink, we all know Chareidim are really misogynistic,” we’ll never find clarity here.

Second, some claim that this woman is committing a grievous error akin to mesirah by publicizing the incident, especially to the Leftist press. After all, Chareidim don’t even read the popular Israeli newspapers – what good will her report do other than exacerbate hatred against religious Jews in Israel? However, this line of thinking seems erroneous. I’m not justifying her actions – this is one case where the ends do not justify the means, and there is no question that she has caused damage to Orthodox Jews of all stripes in Israel. But it is a fact that there is a trickledown effect that drains into the Chareidi media. The truth is, it is very likely that the publicity will help stir positive discussion in Chareidi quarters. Since the cat is out of the bag, for good or ill, we might as well use the opportunity for some introspection. Ditto for the question of this woman’s “feminism.” Even a direct provocation shouldn’t justify violence, and enough of these incidents have happened to prove that this isn’t an isolated event.

On Cross-Currents, Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum offered the following analysis of the incident:

I keep coming back to the same sociological insight: The more insular we are - the more cut off from any Jews not exactly like ourselves - the less we are to think of Torah in terms of hora’a, teaching, and ask ourselves how our actions comport with the teachings of the Torah and what impression our actions are making on those who will judge the Torah by our behavior.

Unfortunately, I’m forced to respectfully disagree. Yes, it is true that Chareidi society is insular, all the more so in Israel. And yes, a modicum integration would help solve certain issues. But I don’t see mingling with other types of Jews forcing or causing any introspection, or preventing this violence. And some of the most vicious attacks have been directed against other Chareidim – Ponevitch and Satmar spring to mind. I think the problem goes beyond simply focusing on what others think.

What is the problem? Why are these attacks happening? The answer is, in a word, zeal.

Every character trait of the human condition can be utilized for good or ill. This is the point of the sefer Orchos Tzaddikim. And Chareidim are zealous in their service to G-d. Nobody denies it – this burning zeal is one of the reasons that even the greatest detractors of the Chareidi world admit that Chareidi Judaism is the wave of the future.

People keep pointing to this or that act, saying, “See! It only happens with the Chareidim!” Well, of course it only happens in Chareidi circles – they’re the only ones that care enough to act when they perceive a wrong being committed in their midst.

In fact, I know of another story that hasn’t been publicized on the Internet yet.

It involves a very respected Rabbi. He was walking along in the market some time ago, when he noticed that a woman was wearing an ostentatious, scarlet garment. Without even asking of she was Jewish, he immediately ran up to her and literally ripped the garment off. Quite the scandal, no?

Oh, wait. It’s a gemara.

Rav Adda bar Ahavah saw a certain Cuthite woman who was wearing an ostentatious garment in the market. He thought she was Jewish, so he arose and tore it off her. It was later revealed that she was a Cuthite woman. They evaluated [the fine for her embarrassment] at 400 zuz. (Berachos 20a)

But that’s not the interesting part. The truly fascinating part is the context. The gemara earlier asks a question: Why did the earlier generations merit miracles, while the later ones do not? The gemara answer that the earlier ones sacrificed themselves for kiddush Hashem, while the later generations do not. Need an example? There’s the case of Rav Adda bar Ahavah…

Yes, in the conclusion of the gemara, Rav Adda seems to regret his impetuousness. But the gemara still labels this type of act as stemming from a person who was willing to sacrifice himself for kiddush Hashem. The explanation is just as I said above. Only a person who really cares about Torah and mitzvot would have ripped the garment off of the woman. And only a person who is zealous in his defense of the Torah merits miracles.

Note that I am not even justifying Chareidi overzealousness. I am simply explaining why this is happening.

I do not mean to minimize the problem. The lack of discrimination in the application is a troubling, even appalling phenomenon that must be dealt with. But it is just as important to understand that these actions stem from a society that is headed in the correct direction, in a general sense. It seems to me that with more public awareness, and an educational focus on the evils of violence – both at home and in the yeshivos – that things will improve. I need only turn to American Chareidim (and American Chareidim living in Israel) for an example. They too, are zealous in their performance of mitzvos. But that zeal is tempered with a certain discrimination, and a strong distaste for violence.

I also don’t want to oversimplify – this is a sociological problem that we’re talking about, and like most sociological issues, there are many causes at work. What I do not want to see are strong calls for a “complete overhaul” of the Chareidi world, which I feel would be counterproductive at best. Chareidi society is not decadent – it has not lost the end and purpose of existence. It places primacy on Torah and mitzvos, even if those high standards are not always fulfilled. This last point probably deserves elaboration, but I’ll have to save that for another time.

In summation, I feel that (1) regardless of what happened, I think that we should focus on introspection. (2) The problem is one of zealousness, an admirable trait that is being misused in certain circumstances. (3) There should be increased education aimed at decreasing violent tendencies. (4) Chareidi society is not decadent, and therefore slow and gradual change is indicated.

The Sender Dolgin Chazara Method

2006-12-13T12:14:00.000-05:00

There is a Chazara system that has been written up about in the Jewish Observer, and has received other publicity, which is the brainchild of R' Sender Dolgin of Lakewood, NJ.

The system is based on an idea that a review of particular material is done before the material is forgotten. So, it works like this, for example:

Day 1: Shabbos Daf 2
Day 2: Shabbos Daf 3, review of Day 1
Day 3: Shabbos Daf 4, review of Day 2
.
.
.
Day 9 Shabbos Daf 10, review of Day 8, review of Day 1 (last seen a week ago)
Day 10 Shabbos Daf 11, review of Day 9, review of Day 2
.
.
.
Day 39 Shabbos Daf 40, review of Day 38, review of Day 31, review of Day 1 (a month ago)
.
.
.
Day 129 Shabbos Daf 130, review of Day 128, Day 121, Day 91, Day 1 (three months ago)
.
.
.
Day 365 New Daf x, review of Day 364, 357, 327, 237, 1 (one year ago)

After this, the review cycle is every year. (Every Day 365 will include all the previous ones). Eventually, one will complete Shas every year by this system, learning 8 Daf a day.

It is supposed to take about 3-4 hours a day to do.

What I want to know is - has anyone, possessing average (or less, like myself) long-term memory, tried this system for a period of 6 months or more, and have they seen good results?

Or is there any other system that has worked for them?

Watercooler She'eilos

2006-12-12T03:42:00.000-05:00

(Yes, that is about the sixth variant of spelling שאלות I've used).

I'm interested in your feedback as far as the most offbeat Halachic question you have ever seen written in responsa, or know of from a reliable source.

The one that comes to my mind immediately is a question in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak. A fellow had become an observant Jew, and he wanted to begin putting Tefillin, but there was one problem: there was an exceedingly immodest image of a woman tattooed on to his left biceps.

What have you got for us?

Treeless in Seattle

2006-12-11T18:57:00.000-05:00

For those who missed the newsbyte, it seems that all Christmas trees have been removed from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport following the protest of a local Chabad figure, Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky.

SEATAC, Washington (AP) -- All nine Christmas trees have been removed from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport instead of adding a giant Jewish menorah to the holiday display as a rabbi had requested.
"We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive," said airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt. "We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year."
Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, who made his request weeks ago, said he was appalled by the decision. He had hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if the Port of Seattle didn't add the menorah next to the trees, which had been festooned with red ribbons and bows.

There are two issues that seem important here. The first is the question of the demand that Channukah menorahs be placed in the airport. Perhaps Rabbi Bogomilsky really made his demand in the spirit of inclusiveness. But I can’t shake the feeling that some have, consciously or otherwise, forgotten that the Jewish people are a nation in exile. Yes, we all know that the United States is a benevolent country. Yes, we know that the constitution protects the freedoms of every religion. But the munificence of a nation does not excuse willful provocation that will almost certainly arouse feelings of hatred toward Jews.

You see it all the time – the way Jewish organizations attack “offenders” with impunity, as if our position among the gentiles is so secure that we no longer face hatred or antisemitism. Yes, Mel Gibson is an antisemite – anyone with eyes in his head noticed it years ago. But one wonders how prudent it is for Jewish figures to drag Gibson over the coals, repeatedly and publicly, for his sins. Some may see this as a form of defense. But as far as I’m concerned, if Western Society is really as tolerant as everyone thinks, it is capable of policing itself against racism and bigotry. The Jewish voices in the choir add nothing but the potential for backlash.

The Christmas tree is a symbol of the Christian holidays, and like it or not, Western Society is essentially Christian society. And that means that as long as the Jews live among Christians, it is us who must go out of the way to be tolerant, not them. It seems that even the Seattle Rabbi realizes that he went too far. As the Rabbi’s lawyer put it,

"They've darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up," said Bogomilsky's lawyer, Harvey Grad. "There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch."

Well, maybe he should have thought of that before he threatened the airport with a lawsuit! And concern? Forget it – it’s happened already. (Current headline at CNN – “Rabbi threats bring down Christmas Tree”)

The second question is one of the airport’s reaction. Faced with the threat of a lawsuit, they caved in and decided to remove the Christmas trees rather than capitulate to Rabbi Bogomilsky’s demands. On the surface, their decision was a pragmatic one – if they must hang the holiday decorations of the Jewish people, shouldn’t they honor Kwanzaa too? And if Kwanzaa, established just a few decades ago, what happens should the Devil Worshippers demand a ghastly pentagram? And what of the atheists, who are offended by any hint of religion? The only way to deal with the problem then, is to completely secularize the holiday – let’s call them Holiday Trees – or perhaps as a more extreme (or pusillanimous) option, to rid our halls of any symbols altogether.

In truth, some view the removal of Christian symbols with a satisfied smirk. America is a pluralistic society, and if we aren’t going to cater to the whims of every religion, then we must accommodate none. And some, of course, have a passionate hatred for every hint of religion. Just look at the recent controversy over Keith Ellison. Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, wishes to take his oath of office over the Koran rather than the Bible, traditionally used for such ceremonies. Although some, led by Dennis Prager, have criticized this move, many support Ellison’s desire. As Ibraim Hooper, a spokesman for the Center for American-Islamic Relations put it,

This is a tempest in an Internet teapot...In reality, they should see the empowerment of such an individual as strengthening the Constitution.

There’s a line that I’ve heard in the name of several gedolim, including the Chafetz Chaim. The gist of it is, “G-d spare me from secular Jews and religious gentiles.”

I think that regardless of whether this line was actually uttered by a Torah sage, there’s no question that the idea lives on in the mythos of Torah Judaism – there’s nothing more dangerous to the Jewish people than religious gentiles. And there is some truth to this idea. Just look where fundamentalism has gotten the Muslims; doesn’t everyone sort of wish they would all settle down to Reform Islam? So yes, it’s definitely true that in certain times and places, zealous gentiles have posed a legitimate threat to the Jewish people.

Unfortunately, I think that one who has even the most cursory understanding of America today will realize that rampant secularism is a much greater threat to the Jewish people than a modicum of religion. And this goes beyond the direct influence such secularism and materialism has on the Jews. The core strength of Western Society, as is true for any society, is the religion that animates it, in this case Christianity. But in recent history, Western Society has become decadent. It has “lost the object” – lost a sense of ultimate purpose and consequently lost its will to survive. And it is no coincidence that this loss has come paralell to the rise of rationality and the decline of religion.

Contrary to popular notion, the rise and fall of societies is rarely dependant on military strength alone. Time and time again, societies brimming with mettle and purpose – of whatever sort – have supplanted mighty yet decadent nations. We saw the same thing during the Cold War (until Reagan turned the tide) and we see the same thing happening today: the retreat of the objectively stronger West before Muslim zeal. If Western society is to survive, it must return to its roots, the religious source of its strength.

I assume I do not have to elaborate on the notion that (barring Divine intervention) if Western Society fails – and most especially the United States – things will not go well for the Jews.

I want to make quite explicit that this post is not in any manner an endorsement of Christianity, despite the fact that at least some aspects of Christianity are derived from Judaism. My point is that if the West is going to stand, it had better find something to stand for. It is doubtful that any American will be stirred to sacrifice his very life for the rally cry of “PS3! Self-parking Lexus! Plasma TV!”

So yes, I deplore the wilful provocation against a beneficient gentile nation. Nevertheless, the supine willingness of America to jettison its honored traditions is more worrying still. At this point, I just don’t know if America can arrest its decline. But I certain hope this great nation will find the moral strength to give it a try.

Rav Goldvicht zt"l on Popular Symposiums for Halachic Issues

2006-12-11T18:53:00.000-05:00

Today, Harry put up a post about the issue of fertility problems and keeping Shiv'ah Nekiyim. Sometimes, as it happens, there is a problem of the woman's ovulation being too early for her to conceive if the full time Halachically required to wait before she goes to Mikvah is kept, and the question is if, and when, one can dispense with the Seven Clean Days which are not usually Biblically mandated.

This question is one that is of major import, and should be presented to major Gedolei Poskim. It is discussed by Shu"t Galya Massechta, by Rav Gustman in the Kuntressei Shiurim to Kiddushin, and at great length by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Minchas Shlomo, et al.

What bothers me to no end is the jaw-dropping presumptuousness in raising this issue, as Harry did, as one in which the commenters are asked to discuss at what point a Chumra or a Din DeRabbanan become burdensome and problematic enough to be overturned under an Eis La'asos LaHashem dispensation or the like.

Newsflash: THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR A BUNCH OF BLOGGERS TO TACKLE! The undermining of Torah authority is so taken for granted on the blogs, that even Shaalos such as these, Chamurah SheBachamuros, are now being discussed out in the open by people who do not even begin to qualify to answer this question.

While I may discuss Halachic import on the blog, it is invariably in the spirit of Talmud Torah only, with Gemaras and Rishonim etc., a gateway into the issue - never as a question which is an override of the Halachic process, certainly not questioning whether a particular Halachah has validity any longer.

Here is a quote from Rav Goldvicht, Rosh Yeshiva at Kerem B'Yavneh, excerpted from a lecture he gave at a symposium regarding "Can Halachah come to terms with reality?" [Hmm, maybe they were discussing Shiva Nekiyim! (Leaving alone for now what he had to say about the substance of the question)]:

"In my opening words, I would like to contest the very dealing with this matter, in a mass forum, before the ears and eyes of people whose interaction with Halachah is not exclusive, constant, and permanent.

A fundamental, and interesting distinction, we find in the words of Rebbi (Moed Katan 16;Succah 49):

"Once it happened that Rebbi decreed that they should not teach students in the marketplace. What was his source? 'The curves of your thighs are like the links of a chain' - Just as the thigh is concealed so too the words of Torah are in private'.

R' Chiyya went out and taught his two nephews in the market... Rebbi heard and was irked... (Rebbi told R' Chiya) why did you do this? He replied, as it states: 'Wisdom will cry out in the streets'. He responded... 'Wisdom will cry out in the streets' - as Rava says... Anyone who delves into Torah in private, his Torah proclaims about him on the outside'. But it says: 'I did not speak at first in private'? That is speaking of the days of the Kallah (Where everyone gathered to hear lectures from the Sages)."

"Market" - the center of the daily routine of life, work, commerce; the world of action. "The days of the Kallah" - the days when the masses gathered to the Beis Medrash, abandoned their businesses and dedicated themselves to hearing words of Torah from the mouths of the Sages of the Kallah.

If we say that Rebbi made a decree, the implication is that there was a great restriction in the Mitzvah of learning and teaching Torah. Rebbi decrees a more closed framework for Torah study. One may not bring the Torah down into the marketplace, to make it a mass, gray, product, a product of the marketplace. Of course, there is no wish to limit the framework of those who learn the Torah. The Torah should, and must, be the heritage of the masses. But to learn Torah, the masses must prepare themselves, to shake off the life of the market and to dedicate themsleves completely to Torah. At least for a few days, they must ascend to the Torah.

It seems that the guidance of Rebbi is important in our days, when Halachah is placed on the 'operating table', and everyone feels himself qualified to dissect it with his own scalpel. Any one who has once smelled the scent of Torah or has read some index books renders his decision: How should we solve this particular Halachic problem, and in his mouth there are words of criticism of the people of Halachah and on the Rabbis, why do they not solve it in the way he thinks is appropriate?

Would it enter into the mind of a novice in medicine to render an opinion in a medical matter after reading some popular articles in some journals? In this area it is clear to everyone, that there is a certain amount of time that one needs to learn for, and there must be practical training.

Why, then, particularly in this holy area, the area of Halachah, where there are so many conditions to acquire it (the 48 ways through which Torah is acquired), through toil in Torah, in learning, and in the lifestyle of the learner - why particularly here anyone who wants to "Take the Name" comes and takes it, without fulfilling the conditions, without reaching the requisite level?"

Just one more, very severe, manifestation of the process of undermining Torah authority on the J-Blogosphere, I guess.

The Chofetz Chaim And The Cat

2006-12-10T12:04:00.000-05:00

There is a story told about the Chafetz Chaim, I may be mangling some of the details but the point is accurate.

It seems someone was busily writing harsh words (perhaps a newspaper column) against the maskilim and various innovators at the time in Eastern Europe. The Chofetz Chaim rebuked the person for going over the line. He asked, “but Rebbe, you yourself have spoken out harshly about the same things!”

The Chofetz Chaim answered as follows:

Sometimes a house becomes infested with mice. Then the householder has to do something about it. So he buys a cat. Now both the householder and the cat are happy -- but for different reasons. The householder is happy that his house is being rid of mice. The cat, on the other hand, is happy that she gets a chance to chase mice.

You, he rebuked the writer, are like the cat, not the householder. Your interest is not ridding the community of malingerers. Your interest is enjoying tearing down people. That is no mitzvah.

* * *

The Orthodox world is now subject to scandals involving child abuse. Much has been written about it already on the J-Blogosphere, and much more will yet be written.

When reviewing these posts, one should always ask oneself: what is the person’s agenda? Is he or she sincerely interested in helping the Orthodox community deal with a problem? Or, is he or she like the Chofetz Chaim’s cat – seeing an opportune time to tear down and attack the Orthodox community?

Frankly, I have seen a very broad range displayed on the internet. Some sincerely want to “rid the house of the mice.” Others, however, clearly have an anti-rabbi or even anti-Torah agenda. A few even engage in Nazi-like propaganda to smear the entire community with the faults and mistakes of a few.

Don’t believe me? A few months ago, an article appeared in a well-known magazine in New York which more or less revealed the latest scandal. Apart from the juicy details of the scandal itself, the writer made sure to quote anonymous sources (“there are some who believe”) who blamed the “repressive” gender separation and ban on pre-marital sexual relations of the Orthodox community and even the system of taharas ha mishpacha! These cornerstones of Orthodox family-life, the writer dutifully informed us, “create[] a fertile environment for deviance.”

(Here is the link for those who don’t believe me: http://nymag.com/news/features/17010/index.html Look at page 5.)

So for those who, like the householder, sincerely wish to rid our community of a serious problem, I wish you hatzlacha and siyatta di shmaya.

On the other hand, those who see this as an excuse to tear down rabbinic authority or even the laws of the Torah itself, I say: save your breath. Greater people than you have tried and failed. Our Torah has lasted for more than 3000 years and will outlast this latest scandal.

appeal to authority vs. halachic reasoning - a practical question

2006-12-08T11:23:00.000-05:00

Let me give the general platitudes of the previous post some practical flesh and bones as it relates to current events, at the risk becoming a lightning rod for criticism. If R’ Chaim Kanievsky shli”ta indeed said (I do not trust second hand reports) that flying on an airliner which had previously engaged in Chilul Shabbos poses a risk of sakanas nefashos, a Pandora’s box of questions has been opened. As advice, such a statement transcends rational explanation. In terms of an issur of placing oneself b’makom sakanah, such a statement certainly demands explanation. Can I ride in a taxi if the driver is a machelel Shabbos, or is this sakanah as well? Why do the dinim of chilul Shabbos have to do with issues of sakanah? Is this a special din that relates to Shabbos, or does it apply to any enterprise run by ba’alei aveira? And most importantly, what are the sources that would support such a statement, whether construed narrowly or broadly? As far as I know, no one has suggested answers to these questions, but even more troubling, no one seems to think these questions need to be asked.
Is it any wonder that such propositions sound bizarre to unaffiliated Jews who are led to dismiss Orthodoxy as a “cult of personality”? Aside from an appeal to the authority of R’ Chaim, is there any reason to accept such advice or a psak halacha sans evidence, sources, or proof? If the Noda b’Yehudah felt unqualified to dispense Torah without sources in shas and poskim, are 21th century talmidei chachamim not to be held to the same standards?
I am not questioning R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s Torah wisdom one iota. Afilu sichas chulin shel talmidei chachamim tzericha talmud is precisely what causes me to wonder why the tools of critical analysis and debate using sources, proof, and reasoning have suddenly been abandoned in favor of blind obedience to authoritarian wisdom. Why is this an exception to the process of talmud Torah?

appeal to authority vs. appeal to reason

2006-12-08T10:06:00.000-05:00

A casual flip through any sefer of tshuvos or chiddushim I think reveals something fundamental about Orthodox Judaism, but I have a hunch others may disagree with my premise. My thesis is that no statement about Torah matters is accepted as valid based solely on the piety of the writer or his vast general knowledge, but every conclusion must be based on proof from text, mesorah, and/or logic. The Noda b’Yehudah opens a tshuvah (O.C. 37) with the statement that he cannot offer a precise reply because he has found no sources in Talmud or poskim that address the question. For every situation the Noda b’Yehudah does addresses in his tshuvos, his responses are replete with proofs – literally an "open book" revealing the process and reasons behind every conclusion.
True, da’as Torah implies that our Chachamim have the power to "read between the lines" of halacha to determine public policy and final hachra’ah. But the very fact that there exists seforim of tshuvos and chiddushim indicates that the primary vehicle by which Torah truth is adjudicated is by textual proof and reasoning, not authoritarian say-so.
When statements like, "The Chazon Ish says XXX is yehareig v’al ya’avor", or "Rav Elyashiv says Y", are offered as proof to a position, that to me is a base appeal to authority, not an appeal to reason and certainly not a fulfillment limud haTorah, and not a very satisfying motivation to accept the conclusion offered. Those statements are best used as a starting point for further investigation, or perhaps a means of closure when one must choose a practical path between various competing positions. Imagine how short the Noda b’Yehuda would be if it was a list of Yes/No answers with no reasoning to justify those conclusions! No Torah view should be immune from critical analysis. Is the position of a gadol a chiddush or consistent with well established precedent? Are there opposing views, and what do we make of their proofs? Is the debate an issue of theoretical law or of facts and application? And even if one is hesitant to adopt the tools of critical theory, one can still consider what the historical and sociological context of a conclusion is. Finally, because issues are complex and multi-faceted, when the need to act forces us to choose between one path or another, the practical conclusion should not necessarily be seen as delegitimizing the theoretical validity of opposing views.
Especially when it comes to aggadita and what is loosely called "hashkafa", there is no concept of hachra’ah (Rambam, Peirush haMishna, Sota 3,3) and the explication of a Chacham should be read as a statement of the personal meaning he found in the mesorah, not as prescriptive statement of "right" interpretation to the exclusion of others, whoever may offer those other viewpoints and whatever they may be.
Of course, if you forget "tein tal u’matar" in ma’ariv you want a quick answer whether you need to repeat shmoneh esrei, not a pilpul shiur. But this quick answer falls under the rubric of "afrushei m’issura", which is permitted to be relayed even in a bathroom because it is a bandaid for a problem, not a cognitive act of talmud Torah that can lead to deeper insight into halacha.
No one who learns a sugya of gemara sees his job as complete by simply listing off opinions, or even worse, by adopting one opinion as correct and dismissing the others simply because "They’re not Rashi". Regardless of what derech halimud one espouses, questions like what might Rashi respond to the proofs of Tosfos or how the Rambam may read a gemara differently to escape the question of the Ra’avad simply beg to be asked and explored. Just because the debate involves 21st century issues does not mean our job as bnei Torah starts and ends with listing shitos or being content to accept any position because "Rabbi Ploni said so" without the same rigorous debate and analysis, and without considering what "the other side" holds, even if that side is not the one we adopt in practice.
To sum up: 1) There must be proof for a Torah chiddush to have halachic legitimacy; 2) Understanding the Why of a position is the goal of talmud Torah and is far more important than Who said it; 3) The process of learning demands we consider multiple viewpoints and weigh respective proofs against each other; 4) Just as we say "eilu v’eilu" on Rashi and Tosfos, we need to say "eilu v’eilu" on Rav Kook and the Satmer Rav, or other contemporary disputants, no matter which one we follow in practice.

Development Opportunities in Yeshivah Education

2006-12-07T13:11:00.000-05:00

Harry Maryles writes the following at the end of his post:

There are two areas of education that need to be the focus if this issue is to be properly tackled. One is the teaching of morals. The other is dealing with the psychology of human sexuality. Our educators need to start implementing seriously, a curriculum that deals with these issues in tandem.

I agree the issue needs to be dealt with. Two questions:

(1) How is the issue dealt with in Modern Orthodox yeshivos, if at all?

(2) Dealing with human sexuality, especially in charedi High Schools would need to take into account tzniyus(modesty) aspects of discussions.

Perhaps small vaadim(groups) are better than large classroom settings for tzniyus purposes; I think I've seen this suggestion in a NCSY publication. Also, one needs the right person to lead the discussion in an effective way, as there would be the concern of awkwardness.

One would have to clarify exactly what the goal of such courses would be. I also assume that some would have a problem entirely with the idea, and prefer that it should be addressed indirectly and obliquely in mussar shmusen.

What about preparing young people to deal with relationships in marriage, i.e., middos and interpersonal skills? There is discussion about this from time to time in the charedi world.

Another issue is appropriate recreation, hobbies, exercise, and emotional development and enrichment.

Despite gender differences, boys as well need to develop their emotional side. The concept of suppressing feelings inappropriately might be a unique issue on the male side of the equation, particularly for quieter types, because of psychological makeup or societal expectations. Society expects boys to hide "weak" emotions like fear, hurt or shame behind a stoic mask, and only anger is an acceptable emotion(Dr. William Pollack). However, one can still be a " real man" , and still develop one's emotional or nurturing side.

All of this is not a contradiction to concentration on limud hatorah and…basketball.

Toby Katz has a good review of a frum girls' magazine in the current Jewish Action(see link in this article). She discusses the concept of such a magazine for boys at the article's end, and humorously mentions difficulties involved. However, I think there can be such a magazine for boys with essays on appropriate topics; it would also be an opportunity to develop writing skills(I think, by the way, that the Jewish Observer had a feature on a writing program in the Noverminsker Yeshivah).

From the Jewish Action article:

And that would be my answer to Friedan and her ilk:

Our Orthodox youngsters are leading rich, full, useful, meaningful
lives. We have much to be grateful for, and much to be
proud of.

I only wish there were an equivalent magazine for boys.

P.S. When I read this article to my teenaged son and
daughters, they all laughed at the very idea that a boy would
be interested in stories about being friends with the nerdy
new boy in town, or what to wear to his brother’s wedding.
Oh well, scratch that.

Anyhow, this is all just some food for thought. Of course, our educators and leaders need to discuss and give guidance on these important topics.

Upgrader Funds

2006-12-05T17:05:00.000-05:00

(This is not at all to be taken as financial advice, just some musings.)

When it comes to investing strategies, there are two basic approaches in buying mutual funds.

(These are funds which take your money and invest them in particular stocks for you, for a fee. Sometimes the investment is across huge swaths of the market, like funds that invest in those stocks that make up the S&P 500 [the "top" 500 companies in the US stock market], or the Wilshire 5000 Total Market. They can also be quite focused, like investing solely in biotechnology, or real estate.)

One approach is a market timing approach - entering the market when certain indicators show that the outlook for growth is favorable, and exiting when the signals are unfavorable. This takes some following of a strategy - either your own, if you're really, really expert, or of a market timing newsletter, such as that of Bob Brinker, among many others.

The other approach is the buy-and-hold strategy. This means that you put your money in a fund, and let it sit there, riding out the ups and downs of the market. Over time, the US stock market has outperformed other, more conservative, instruments of investment, such as government bonds. If someone has a long enough time-horizon to wait out the inevitable roller-coaster, past history indicates that overall one will do better in the stock market than elsewhere.

For the buy-and-hold investor, the Upgrader funds are an interesting option. The strategy is based on an intriguing concept. This fund buys other mutual funds which are just beginning to perform well, in the hopes of riding the wave. As the fund begins to underperform, (trends are determined based on certain algorithms), the Upgrader fund shifts out of those funds.

Since the inception of FUNDX (the trading symbol for the basic "Upgrader fund"), the fund has significantly outperformed the S&P 500, which is a traditional benchmark used in comparison to a fund. You can go here for the data. (You can enter 'FUNDX', then a space, then 'VFINX', which is a fund which mirrors the S&P 500 index, and see the results over the medium and longer term)

[Full disclosure - I have retirement money in that fund]

Saving for retirement is a very important priority, as Social Security, even if it survives until retirement age for thirtysomethings like me, will not cover costs of living, and company pensions are basically a thing of the past. Looking into investment in mutual funds as a way to provide for the golden years is a good idea.

Now, I could go off on a tangent to discuss how one stream of Judaism today mirrors the buy-and-hold, and one is more the market timer, adjusting and tinkering as the climate dictates, but that's not really the point of the post. It was more to see who among Mishmar readers, if at all, is into this stuff... [If politics works...] (and a public service reminder to save for retirement).

Derasha for Parshas VaYishlach

2006-12-04T20:50:00.000-05:00

Yaakov prepares himself for his encounter with Esav in three ways - through gifts, davening, and battle.

We normally tend to associate these preparations for his encounter with Esav as a means of either avoiding battle through "natural means" - offering a gift, appealing to Hashem to be saved from defeat in battle at the hands of Esav, and, if necessary, putting up a good fight.

However, this is only half the story.

The Passuk says later on: "Save me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esav.

The Or HaChaim, and others, explain this Passuk, that Yaakov is worried about two possible scenarios that may unfold in his meeting with Esav. He is of course worried about coming to physical harm, but even ahead of that he is worried about "his brother" - the fraternal bond of Esav being renewed, and the possibility of being forced to deal with an amicable brother, who wants to associate with Yaakov and his family.

Yaakov knows that it is an inevitable part of his and his descendants' destiny to be intertwined with Esav's - he wrestles with the Sar Shel Esav through the night. Wrestling - arms intertwined with arms, legs with legs, headlocks, one wrestler atop the other, trying to pin each other to the ground - rendering the opponent immobile. And he knows, just as inevitably, that he will be wounded, injured, limping, from this association.

This is true whether the association is confrontational - where the Jews will suffer losses, or fraternal - the Jews will suffer as well.

One Rosh Yeshiva showed me a Medrash:

"And he was limping on his thigh - R' Yehoshua ben Levi was coming from Rome, and when he reached Acre, R' Chanina came to greet him. He found that he was limping on his thigh. He said: You are like your ancestor, 'And he was limping on his thigh'"

What is the meaning of this Medrash? And, since Rabbi Chanina was R' Yehoshua ben Levi's Rebbe, why was he coming to greet his Talmid?

R' Yehoshua ben Levi has just returned from Rome. What did he do there? He hobnobbed with the great Emperor, the Roman aristocracy, to accomplish some political benefit on behalf of the Jews. R' Chanina tells him - it is clear to me that you were somehow affected by your visit to Rome - it is not possible to remain unaffected! As your Rebbe, it is my job to sensitize you to this, and to help you discover where exactly your spiritual level declined.

Yaakov prepares himself for his meeting with Esav "his brother" with these three things as well - he must daven not to be adversely affected, he must be prepared to fight to maintain his standards, and he must offer gifts to his brother, so that when Esav offers to have some of his men travel along with Yaakov, Yaakov has some leverage to be able to hold his brother at arm's length and keep him from getting too close.

In America, we are far more worried about Esav "our brother" than of Esav "the Esav". We have lost millions to assimilation, and it is unavoidable that all of us get affected in some way or another by Esav. We have to daven that we are not overly influenced by Esav's friendly demeanor, and be prepared to put our foot down when too much influence threatens to creep into our homes - our personal Battei Mikdash.

The "gift" to Esav is a very tricky proposition. We recognize that living and interacting in American society requires some concession to Western culture, we adopt some mannerisms and contend with value systems. We spend some of the dollars allocated to us by Hashem on some elements that Esav has to offer - eating out, miniature golf, maybe even other entertainment venues. A person has to walk a very fine line, and consult with Rabbeim, to determine where the line is drawn. We sometimes feel that our children, and maybe ourselves as well, would be miserable if we would completely deny them, or us, all things America has to offer. But it is critical to be vigilant and recognize that this is just to keep the insidious elements of the Esav culture at arm's length - to help us feel content, not to help us indulge.

And that balance is so delicate, that we realize that only through heartfelt supplication to Hashem do we have any chance of crossing the rickety bridge of life over the rushing torrent of Esav-like influences.

"Recognizing Reality"

2006-12-04T16:41:00.000-05:00

The media are reporting that President Bush will accept the resignation of UN Ambassador John Bolton. As Michele Malkin puts it,

Very depressing news this Monday morning. We are losing a staunch, devoted defender of America's interests at the U.N.
Reacting to the news, Eleanor Clift chuckled on Fox News that Bush is just "recognizing reality."
If the White House thinks throwing in the towel and throwing Bolton overboard will appease the Dems or the U.N., it doesn't know what reality is.

The worst part of this sordid affair is that Bolton would likely be confirmed by a vote on the Senate floor. But the vote will never get there because of the likes of "Republican" Lincoln Chafee, outgoing (wonder why?) senator of Rhode Island who has a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Klausenberger Rebbe zt"l on Rashi

2006-12-04T15:41:00.000-05:00

The Klausenberger Rebbe zt"l was once sitting at a charity function and the speaker thanked various women for their contribution to the success of the evening. "Debby", for making some phone calls, "Sheila" for the flowers, etc. etc.

The speaker then proceeded to quote a Rashi from the Parsha and butcher it completely.

The Klausenberger remarked - I thought I had a Teirutz for a Rashi, but I see that I don't:

Rashi in Megillas Rus quotes the Gemara - וכי דרכו של בעז לשאול בנשים. [Is is the way of Boaz to inquire about the women?]. And he answers.

Now Rashi in Vayishlach asks: ודינה היכן היתה? [Where was Dinah?]

So I ask וכי דרכו של רש"י לשאול בנשים? [Is it the way of Rashi to inquire about the women?]

Must be רש"י איז געווען א פרוי! [Rashi was a woman!]

So I had that Teirutz.

But now, I see, (pardon my Yiddish spelling here) אללע פרוין קען ער יא,
רש"י קען ער נישט, [All the women he is familiar with, but with Rashi he is not familiar].

So now I'm left with no Teirutz!

Two Forms of Emunah II

2006-12-04T00:12:00.000-05:00

In my previous post , I emphasized that Gedolie Yisrael, following a mesorah, choose an educational policy which they felt was best for the charedi community on a whole, as far as emphasizing emunah peshuta(simple, experiential faith). I also wrote that it is important to make clear that emunah al pi chakirah(faith supported by inquiry) was not totally rejected from Yahadus, even though it has weaknesses, and also that much depends on the particular person.

In "There is Only One Yeshiva College: A Memoir"(11/16/04/ Commentator) one leader of the Yeshivah University community discusses his formative years.

"One scene remains indelibly inscribed in my otherwise imperfect memory. I was visiting the home of my uncle, the founder and rabbi of the Crown Heights yeshiva, and noticed in his library the then standard English translation of the Rambam's Guide of the Perplexed. Perplexed I certainly was, but frightened as well. I had it drilled into me that it was strictly forbidden to read the Guide, because it was dangerous to my spiritual health, because it posed questions without providing simple answers, and because it would lead me astray into the study of philosophy and other such abominable heresies. But suddenly, with the Guide in my hands, I could not resist this heterodox temptation, and began to leaf through the recondite volume. I recall that I was particularly interested in angels "was there or wasn't there a rational explanation?" and so kept on reading furtively, afraid that at any moment some adult would walk in, catch me in the act, and publicly reveal my shame.

The author continues that this incident lead him to realize that he would be happier at Yeshivah University.

I would note that the above description is the author's own feelings, and does not give expression to legitimate concerns over learning the Moreh. But I am wondering had he expressed his concerns to a mashgiach, if he could have been guided in learning the Moreh, perhaps after having a thorough grounding in other hashkafah works. I think such an approach, for an intellectually-inclined person, is better than having someone eventually leaving the charedi world.

I contrast this with a positive experience of my own. I once thought of a question concerning how the rejection of kadmus(eternal theories of the universe) relates to, or flows from ikkarei emunah. I asked, a (charedi) rebbe of mine who had a "breidkeit"(broad outlook) in hashkafa about this. I was originally somewhat uncomfortable asking the question, because I felt that it was an unconventional type of thing to ask about. I remember this rebbe telling me that the Moreh Nevuchim deals with this question at length. At that point, this was sufficient, as I really was not interested in Platonic or Aristotelian theories of the universe; in fact, I think that I even felt good about being "mechavein" to the Moreh!

Now of course, a decision to change yeshivos is a personal decision and may be caused by more than one factor. However there need not be any reason, in my opinion, for anyone-- even in the charedi world-- to be "afraid that at any moment some adult would walk in, catch me in the act, and publicly reveal my shame."

I think that this illustrates my point that we should not completely consider emunah al pi chakirah as foreign to Yiddishkeit. True, a person should be well-grounded in experiential-faith before engaging in inquiry, but emunah al pi chakirah still has its place, at least for some individuals.

Challenging Gedolim on Setting Public Policy

2006-12-02T23:58:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the Chazon Ish to a religious Member of Knesset, regarding his willingness join the government and to vote against the decision of the Gedolei HaDor regarding Sherut Leumi, based on a distinction between their authority in Psak Halachah vs. public policy making:

"The outlook of making the Torah two separate parts, decision of Issur V’Hetter as one segment, and decisions in the marketplace of life, another; to submit to the decisions of the sages of the generation in the first part, and to allow freedom of choice in the other, is the old outlook of the heretics, in the decline of Judaism in Germany who subverted the Jewish Nation to the point of assimilation among the non-Jews, and there was nothing left as a remnant.

... The distinction between deciding Issur V’Hetter, and deciding boundaries and decrees, this distinction is Gilui Panim BaTorah, and Mevazeh Talmidei Chachamim, and (those who make this distinction) are counted among those who have no share in the World to Come, and they are disqualified from testimony."

Who Really Cares

2006-12-01T01:18:00.000-05:00

Syracuse Professor Arthur C. Brooks has just come out with a well-researched and documented book on the charitability and volunteering habits of conservatives vs. liberals, and religious vs. secular, titled "Who Really Cares".

See here for some of the eye-opening statistics on the topic.

Check out the site linked for his bio as well - he does not at all seem to be one who was looking for particular results.

V'Hayu Einecha...

2006-11-30T21:08:00.000-05:00

Hattip: Steve Brizel.

Two Forms of Emunah: Another View

2006-11-29T20:43:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of stimulating interesting discussion which we hope Mishmar will become famous for, I present my comments stimulated by Bari's post in the form of a separate posting. I do not so much disagree, rather I am giving a little different balance to the issue of the two types of faith. I also discuss the Iggeres Teiman regarding a person's tendencies towards belief.

This issue of emunah peshuta vs. chakirah is an age-old debate, and the Chassid Yavetz's opinion is as relevant today as ever. Obviously, the views of current manhigim(leaders) are of utmost importance, for it is they who are guiding the Jewish People for the long haul: ad bias goeil(which we hope is actually not such a long-haul).

Regarding a slightly different topic, current charedi hashkafa and mesorah(and even MO for young children, to an extent) is a mix of rational and mystical; the Rambam, Emunah V'deos and the Chovos HaLevavos, yes, but also the Chafetz Chaim, Arizal and the Maharal. Personally, I feel one must be well-grounded in emunah peshutah, especially at a young age. However, I think that it's important to make clear that emunah al pi chakirah is not totally rejected from Yahadus, even though it has weaknesses, and they have, arguably, been proven over time. As Bari quotes from the Chassid Yavitz, it was the "simple people" that were willing to die al kiddush Hashem.

To say that chakirah, however, is totally rejected would be like saying today that some elements of the Moreh Nevuchim became kefirah today(although some hold that). Rav Schwab also quotes a Shu't regarding TIDE that "ki he machalokes yeshanah"; its an age- old debate in Jewish History. Similarly, the question of the two types of emunah is also an age-old one. Of course, all of these are separate issues, but it should be mentioned that there are opinions which favor, specifically, a rational approach. I quote Michtav Meliyahu and Emunah Ramah( Raavad I) here (last comment in thread) which provide a nice balance and historical context for the issue.

The Beis Halevi's opinion in parshas Bo on dealing with a one who is challenging the faith, is also interesting. He emphasizes emunah peshuta, and not debating, but rather davening for that person! In other words, to an extent, one can not "give" another person emunah peshutah-- certainly not overnight-- although one can expose a person to a Torah environment.

Also, see the preface to the Lev Tov edition of Shaar Hayichud at length, regarding the drawbacks of chakirah. There is, of course, basis to the decision to skip Shaar Hayichud in charedi Yeshivos. It should be noted, however, that the Chasam Sofer did teach Shar Hayichud in his shiurim.

My personal thoughts, are that much depends on the person, that there are different mixes of both types of faith, and that it is not an either or issue.

I feel, though, that everyone needs to be well grounded in emunah peshutah, especially at a young age. I would go so far as to suggest, that had the Rambam written the Moreh Nevuchim, or Rav Saadiah Gaon, Emunah V'deos, at age five, they might(chas v'sholem) have become Kofrim! In other words, they as well, possibly, benefited from emunah peshutah.

Iggere Teiman

I would also like to quote the Rambam's letter in Iggeres Teiman("Epistle to Yemen"). He encouraged the Jews of Yemen who were facing forced conversion and also the prospect of a false Messiah; that community subsequently was grateful to him for generations later.

The Rambam there writes that the Torah promises that the Jewish people will always believe in Moshe Rabbeinu, v'gam becha yaaminu l'olam(Shemos 19:9) From this we see, writes the Rambam, that someone who leaves the Jewish faith, did not originally stand at Haar Sinai.

Rav Shaach, in the fifth volume of Michtavim and Maamarim was asked: we see Jews who did leave the faith! He answers that a person still has bechirah, free-will. The Rambam should be understood as merely stating the tendency of the Jewish nation in general; in other words, what I think we would call "a pintle Yid". R Shaach continues that the greater a person, the greater his opposing tendencies as well(e.g., he mentions the example of Korach).

Rav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg as well, in his sefer on emunah, quotes the Iggeres Teiman, Sefer Hayashar(Rabbeinu Tam) and Chasid Yaavetz, and maintains that emunah is a natural part of a Jew. Rather than create faith ex nihilo, the goal is to simply let the natural faith develop("mimelah") and expand through Torah and mitzvos, and to protect it by being careful regarding negative sources of exposure. He uses the approach of the Iggeres Teiman to answer questions raised by Rav Elchanon Wasserman in Kovetz Maamarim on the obligation to have faith.

However, I don't know for certain if we have ever "proven" this in the conventional sense. To do so, one would have to take ten Jews raised in a forest, and ten non-Jews raised similarly, and demonstrate the difference in the nature of the neshomos(souls), as far as belief. Also, as mentioned above from R Shaach, there is always the bechirah(free-will) factor that affects the equation.

It should be noted that Project Chazon and others have been developing programs to educate children with basic principles of Yahaadus. In a discussion on R Yaakov Horowitz site, the issue of children and emunah issues is raised(see my two comments there). I maintain that having doubts is a perfectly normal phenomenon, even if it is not publicly discussed, for good reasons. In fact, the Chovos Halevovos in Shar Yichud Hamaseh discusses at length natural thought- patterns that are in opposition to faith. This would indeed seem as R. Shaach states that a person has internal opposing, or conflicting forces. Clearly, it is not solely a recent phenomenon.

Challenges to Emunah may be viewed in a positive way: as a building block to growth; as I quoted above from Rav Shaach, "kol hagodel machaveiro, yitzro gadol heimeno". Rabbi Dr. A.J. Twerski also discusses the issue of doubts from a psychological perspective in a response in his "I am I".

Anyhow, thanks to Bari for translating RSZA writings; I agree as well with his last three paragraphs.

The Gift of Gab

2006-11-29T19:13:00.000-05:00

Rabbi Levi said: There are four characteristics of women...The Rabbis add an additional two: they are sensitive, and talkative (Devarim Rabbah 6).

I’ve taken some heat on the J-Bloggosphere for my radical stance that women are quite different in nature from men. Of course, the sages has no problem with the idea. And now it seems that even a female psychologist and self-proclaimed feminist has come to the same conclusion. From the article:

It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men. In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man... The book - written by a female psychiatrist - says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.
In The Female Mind, Dr Luan Brizendine says women devote more brain cells to talking than men. And, if that wasn't enough, the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.

What I actually found most interesting in the article is the following admission:

“I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us...I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.”

Dr. Brizendine admits that political correctness has, for years, caused her to struggle with the scientific truth before her eyes. Kinda makes you wonder what other political or secular orthodoxies are causing scientific evidence to be swept under the rug, no? Anyone think Harvard owes Larry Summers an apology?

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on Emunah Peshutah and Chakirah

2006-11-28T23:02:00.000-05:00

Halichos Shlomo Vol. I, Maamarim (pg. 367)

"...In truth, there is a debate between the Rishonim and the Acharonim. The manner of the Kadmonim was to know and to understand the existence of Hashem through Chakirah, to the extent that the intellect can reach. However, the Acharonim, their way is through Emunah Peshutah, and to believe in all this because it says so in the Torah.

And, behold, the truth is, although, certainly, it is not for us to mix in to this matter, but, nevertheless, most of the Mechabrim have decided that the correct path is the simple path, and that is the path where the chances are good for gain, and adverse for loss. And the truth is, that the intellect dictates this, for what benefit is there in Chakirah? Had all the philosophers with their analyses not been able to understand what they did, or, on the contrary, Chas VeShalom, they would understand otherwise, would it then be permissible for them to not believe, Chas VeShalom, in the existence of Hashem? And if so, what benefit is there in analyzing a matter which, either way, I am not free to do as I opine? Will a heretic and an Apikores not get punished?

And that which the Chassid, the author of the Chovos HaLevavos, writes, that the path of Emunah Peshutah is an unpraiseworthy path, and he declares about this that it is similar to the Emunah of fools, it is a Davar Nifla, for, in the final analysis, this Mitzvah is like any other Mitzvah in the Torah, and what would he do about the whole Torah if he would not understand? And, therefore, the Acharonim decided to go on the path of simplicity...

And so too we find in Massechta Shabbos (116a), that they told Rava - "Why did you not come to Bei Avidan?" - and Rashi explains that this was a place where the heretics would debate the Jews in matters of faith - And Rava responded: "There was a certain palm tree on the road and it was difficult (for me to come)?" "Uproot it!" "Its place would be difficult for me" - And Rashi explains that, still, a hole would remain.

...What is the idea here? According to what we have said, it seems, that this was his approach, not to do too much analysis in these matters. And they did not do so, and therefore he responded to them that there is a palm tree on the road. It says in Berachos (57a) that one who sees a Lulav in a dream, he has only one heart for his Father in Heaven". And that is what he was telling them, that he only wants one heart, and does not want to know the opposing views. So they told him - "Uproot it", meaning, back out of this position. And he said to them, that its place is difficult for me, for, still, a hole remains if one also knows the opposing viewpoints.

Also well known are the words of R"Y Yaavetz, among those expelled from Spain, who said that all those of simple faith gave their lives for Hashem, and of the philosophers, not all of them, and there were only few who retained their holiness.

And this is what we say: "Sh'ma Yisrael", meaning, we do not believe in Hashem because of our analyses that brought forth the conclusion that there is One G-d; for there are those Rishonim who explain the Passuk "For no man can see Me and live", that it also refers to intellectual sight, not just sensual - and this is the secret of "You will see My back" - meaning not a clear sight, and therefore our faith is because this is what we were told, 'Sh'ma Yisrael', know that Hashem commanded you to believe that He is One, and this is the inner secret of our belief.

And about this, the Kohen anointed for war says, that in the merit of your implicit faith in Hashem, you will not be handed over into their hands."

The truth is, that for me, I sense with every inner faculty that I have, that following in the path of the Torah is the way to achieve greater heights in refinement of the intellect, of character, of the spirit and soul. It is the path, the only path, to become that special, pinnacle of Creation, type of person, like Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who can state publicly at the funeral of his wife that he has nothing to ask Mechilla for, because he always followed the laws and dictates of the Shulchan Aruch in his relationship with her - meaning, that therein lies the path to perfect harmony between a husband and wife, and, by extension, between one man and his fellow, and between man and himself.

Only the Maker of man Himself could devise such a perfect system for this exquisitely refined existence, for mankind at large is still groping in the dark as to how to achieve it.

And if that constitutes Emunah Peshutah - so be it. I'll be the happiest person in the world in following this simplest of rationales for being a Torah Jew.

Barnie Fife And The Curious Incident At The Falafel Stand

2006-11-28T17:14:00.000-05:00

When I was a child, I knew that there was a force of Good in the world. But it wasn’t G-d at that point in my life. It was the police.

There was a large police station just a couple of blocks away from our house. My siblings and I used to go to the huge park across from the station and watch the goings on, trying to guess what the uniformed officers were doing and where they were headed. Occasionally we got lucky and saw them leading a handcuffed prisoner into the station.

We never questioned that the police were the good guys. It was back in the days before 911 (gasp!) and I remember that we had a sticker with the number of the police stuck to the side of our phone. We knew who to call if there was trouble. Yes, it is true that cops were parodied in the media. Who can forget the bumbling Barnie Fife, or Boss Hogg’s half-wit lackey Roscoe P. Coltrane? But I think that at least in the civil portion of American society, police were respected as symbols of the law.

I don’t think that much has changed in the States over the years. The world has moved, on and cynicism has crept into every corner of society. And people are more weary of strangers in general, even ones in uniform. But I don’t get the impression that the average American has a fundamentally different view of the police force than I did as a child. If anything, in this day of public transparency, there is even a stronger feeling that the police are checked from corruption and brutality. In fact, many feel they are reigned in to an excessive degree. And the few times that I dealt with a policeman in the States only confirmed my impression that they are for the most part hard-working, courteous and honorable people.

Check out this link about a shooting in New York just the other day. What I found interesting is not the fact that the family is crying murder; that’s to be expected, regardless of what really transpired. What’s interesting to me is the fact that Mayor Blumberg is calling for a grand jury investigation. And yes, I know that somebody was killed. But surely officers of the law understand that there is a system of oversight in place, and that excessive actions at least in theory will lead to hearings and possible sanctions.

Now contrast this with the perception of the Israeli police force. The average Israeli understands that the police are virtually worthless, when not an outright danger to life and limb. Crimes frequently go unreported, except for insurance purposes. Why bother? It’s not as if there’s going to be a serious investigation and attempt to apprehend a mere thief. And corruption – just forget it. An acquaintance of a friend (admittedly a shady character, though he did not seem to be lying) related that he was once in a hotel room where mafia elements were passing out bribes to dozens of officers. The officers literally stood in line, waiting patiently for their turn to collect a plastic bag full of cash. One need only glance at the geriatric officers that amble in groups down the streets of major cities in Israel to know that it isn’t these yokels that protect the citizenry.

The current buzz in the Israeli media, for those who don’t check the local news, is the recent escape of serial-rapist Benny Sela, and the intense manhunt still in progress. Of course, it is true that escapes happen everywhere, even in the United States. But apparently, as one Ha’aretz reporter points out, such escapes are becoming an epidemic in Israel. And the general consensus seems to be that despite the claims of the officers transporting Sela, the rapist wasn’t even handcuffed at the time of his escape.

Why the difference between American and Israeli police? For starters, order in Israel is essentially kept by the IDF, not the police force. In America, police are paid a decent salary, but certainly nothing to write home about (www.salary.com has the average for a patrol officer at about 40-50k). Israeli police, on the other hand, are paid much better than the average Israeli. This means that while the US police forces will (as always) attract a certain percentage of power-trip types, the vast majority will be those dedicated to a career in the public service of law and order. The ranks of the Israeli police (and the army, for that matter) are filled with those who seek a decent paycheck and a wonderful package of benefits.

There seems to be an underlying sentiment among the American bloggers that I’ve seen that although the rioters against the planned Gay Pride Parade were brutalized by the police, they essentially deserved it. And I don’t mean to say that they deserved to be beaten for their ideological stance. Rather, I mean that the perception that on the ground, no policeman actually attacked any protester unless “he deserved it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I know of countless first-hand reports that testify to the fact that there was a systematic attempt by the police to brutalize any protester, peaceful or otherwise. A few students related that personal possessions had even been stolen by policemen – one, a valuable watch, and another, his wallet emptied of cash in front of his eyes.

Don’t like it? File a report.

And yes, I know that Israel is a society fighting for survival; who has the time and energy to completely remake the police force when Qassams continue to rain down among us? But the fact is, too many internal ills of Israeli society are blamed on external foes. I think we’ve reached the stage where Israel must choose between being first world country or a third world society with a tangential high-tech industry.

What’s my point here? Perhaps what got me thinking about this whole subject was the police officer beside me at the falafel stand yesterday. Obese and elderly, he didn’t look fit enough to chase down the falafel ball that escaped his pita and rolled across the grimy counter, much less a youthful criminal escapee. Or perhaps it's the following: First, Americans should appreciate yet another facet of the G-d given gift that is the United States. And second, that people should be less hasty to retroactively condemn every action of the protesters against the Gay Parade. In previous posts, I have categorically denounced any violent actions taken by the protesters. Nevertheless, we should keep the state of the Israeli police force in mind whenever we hear of incidents in Israel involving the police as it exists today (…and I’m guessing that most Religious Zionists will agree wholeheartedly.)

A New Look for Mishmar

2006-11-27T16:31:00.000-05:00

Let's face it. Until now, Mishmar was like some of my Rebbis from my yeshiva days - you had to forget about the packaging and concentrate on the message. But there's no reason why Mishmar can't look great too. So with just this bit of fanfare, I introduce our new banner. In the near future, we'll be enhancing the overall design of the site too. Enjoy!

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too - Bloggers on Agudah

2006-11-27T15:50:00.000-05:00

When the great debate about the permissibilty of joining Sherut Leumi arose in the 1950s, there were factions of frum Jews who held that it should be permissible, among them Talmidei Chachamim.

When the Mizrachi criticized the majority of the Gedolim who opposed it, they put up posters and placards, denouncing their decision as radical and misinformed as to the dangers Sherut Leumi posed.

In a meeting between Ben Gurion and the Rabbanim Isser Zalman Meltzer, Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Meir Karelitz, Ben Gurion challenged those Rabbanim by saying - but there are great Rabbis who disagree with you. What follows is an excerpt from the minutes of that conversation, to the best of my recollection (if this isn't verbatim, it is close)

Rav Tzvi Pesach said - "They are not great Rabbis".

Ben Gurion - "HaRav Frank, a little humility!"

Rav Tzvi Pesach - "They may be learned, but they are not Gedolim. They are the Yeravam ben Nevats of the generation" [As quoted from the minutes of their meeting, in Pe'er HaDor vol. V]

Now, this would seem to me, to be the epitome of the "my way or the highway" complaint against the Agudah today. And in cases where the caliber and number 0f the Gedolei Torah on one side of an issue is much greater than the other, there may be accusations of the above nature as well.

So how hollow is the complaint that the Agudah insists on its "my way or the highway" - as if this is something new. Yes, when the Agudah Gedolim think a certain way - they act on it - and sometimes reject opposing opinions, even of learned people, as lacking in Daas Torah - meaning lacking what the Hashkafas HaTorah-true position should be.

Rav Moshe can think that another Posek is advocating Chillul Shabbos DeOraysa by allowing an Eruv in a certain area, and will state unequivocally that one carrying in an area with such an Eruv is a Mechalel Shabbos DeOraysa, while not Passeling him for Edus, perhaps, since he is following his Rav's (incorrect, in RMF's view) Psak. But if one were to ask him, his answer would be :"My way, and you're carrying in a highway."

One insisting on receiving the approbation of Rav Moshe can show only one thing - that he does consider Rav Moshe's opinion significant enough to make him think twice about unequivocally accepting his Rebbe's. Believe me, nobody ever accepted a Psak from Rav Moshe, and then needed approbabtion from someone else in order to feel totally comfortable following it. Nobody.

So, how pathetic is the sidelong gaze at the Agudah's position on blogs. If you were that secure in your Derech, that you claim you have the sanction of your Rabbeim for - why do you need the "nuance" or "balance" of the Agudah? So you can sleep better at night? Why - having trouble now that Rav Ploni didn't like what your blog does? Or are you sleeping better now that you think he might have said it is okay? Why should it affect you at all? Like I said - if Rav Moshe said to me it was okay, I wouldn't care if another Posek said it wasn't!

There are, I think, only three options here:

1) I accept what the Agudah public policy is, unquestioningly, or, maybe, I won't question it publicly.

2) I accept the public policy they set, and will question it publicly. (Which, perhaps, can be done sometimes, but if their leadership is to remain intact, you might want to make it clear that you actually make clear that you accept it, despite your reservations.)

3) I don't accept their public policy decision when they conflict with what I think is right, and will question it and attack it to the best of my ability in public so that people do not accept their policies and shift over to those espoused by me or my Rabbeim. (Read: undermining of authority of the Gedolim of the Agudah. Call it what you want - that's what it really is. It might be a very "American" and "democratic" way of doing things - let's have a public battle of ideas and let the most convincing position win [and what is most convincing can, quite 0ften, be as a result of being in congruence with the New York Times editorial board position than that of the Torah, since the one being convinced may very well be unaware, or have sufficiently ingrained into his thought process, the Hashkafos of the Torah], but there is no precedent, to the best of my knowledge, for this, in the Torah. In fact, the Shulchan Aruch Paskens that even the greatest Dayan in the world may not have a Talmid who is not a Talmid Chacham sit in his court at the time of judgement, because the Talmid can cause the great Dayyan to lose his ability to think straight. Krumkeit is very contagious.

Those who try to dance on both Chasunahs - options two and three simultaneously, are being intellectually dishonest with, primarily, themselves.

Israel's Long Term Prospects

2006-11-26T20:00:00.000-05:00

Just beyond the horizon lies the specter of a nuclear threat to Israel. It seems increasingly likely that the international community will muster neither the will, nor the prowess, necessary to halt the inexorable march toward a nuclear armed Iran. Moscow seems intent on shifting the balance of power, where Israel's strategic edge is less and less pronounced, as evidenced by their recent providing of highly sophisticated surface-to-air missles meant to defend against incoming missile or air assaults. Once deployed, which is in six months on the outside, a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities becomes little more than a pipedream.

And the threat does not end there.

The war by proxy, ably fought by Hezballah this summer, showed that supplying lethal weapons, capable, eventually, of bearing WMD tipped warheads, is not the stuff of next century technology.Terrorist organizations will probably be able to get their hands on some kind of mass-destruction device in the not-too-distant future as well.

A preemptive strike by Israel and/or the US and the consequences thereof, on the nuclear facilities of Iran, are analyzed quite thoroughly here, in a 2004 study from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

A preemptive nuclear strike by Israel against Iran would have such disastrous implications for the long-term survival of Israel, as to render such a move untenable. Israel would be viewed as the aggressor, as the nation which dropped the atomic bomb on the Muslim world, not vice versa, and would be shut down internationally. The Muslim countries will have been driven into a crazed frenzy of Jew-killing everywhere. Pakistan may very well supply her nuclear weapons to a neighboring country to retaliate against such a massive loss of life in the Muslim world.

What is Israel to do?

It seems absolutely essential that the missile defense system of Israel be as impervious to incoming missiles as possible.In March of this year, it seemed that the Arrow-2 did have the ability to knock down incoming missiles, at the assumed level of technological advancement of Iranian capabilities. However, in the beginning of this month, indications are that Iran showed capabilities beyond what the international community had been aware of, including the ability of the Shehab missiles to drop multiple bomblets simultaneously. Of course, this is just a layman's view of things - if anyone knows better for some silver lining - chime in!

Should Iran attempt, G-d forbid, to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, Israel must be ready to fight back with everything at its disposal, including her own nuclear weapons. There is no room for tepid responses to this occurence, and, yet, I wonder if the IDF ethic is capable of perpetrating that amount of civilian casualty. I hope, for the sake of the Jews living in Israel, that it is.

All this is only in the Hishtadlus realm. There is much work to do in terms of strengthening our commitment to the Ribbono Shel Olam and having Bitachon that he will save us from this present-day Haman.

But, in the back of my mind, I cannot rid myself of the possibility that, ultimately, we may have to resort to a modern-day Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai negotiating for Yavneh and its Sages, the survival of Israel as a Torah center, if securing Jewish sovereignty proves to be beyond our grasp.

I daven that we merit a more satisfactory solution to this looming crisis.

The Seridei Eish - Perspective on Torah of the Greats

2006-11-24T12:26:00.000-05:00

(Excerpted from the biography in the beginning of the 5764 edition of L'Frakim):

The Seridei Eish once answered a question that Rabbi Akiva Eiger left with a Tzarich Iyyun. One of the students asked him: Is it possible that Rabbi Akiva Eiger did not know how to answer what he (the Seridei Eish) did know?

He asnwered: There are many levels in understanding, and what I understood, with my limited intellect, in the meaning of the question of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, I was able to answer, but the true deeper meaning of the question of Rabbi Akiva Eiger's question we do not grasp at all, and, indeed, according to his great level, he remained with a Tzarich Iyyun.

On a related note, it is worthwhile bringing down the Shu"t Seridei Eish I:113 regarding acquisition of Torah:

"This is the way of Torah, to clarify and innovate even in opposition to the greatest of the Acharonim. And only regarding practical Halachah, it is forbidden for us to ignore the words of those greats, z"l, whose intellect/knowledge was broader than ours, and we are all as a garlic peel compared to them. But regarding logic and explication of the concepts, we have license to innovate and to say things that they did not relate to, for every person in Klal Yisrael whose soul was at Har Sinai received his share in the Torah and in Torah novellae and there is no challenging this.

I am accustomed to explain, that which Chazal in Pirkei Avos enumerate among the 48 ways that the Torah is acquired: Pilpul HaTalmidim and Emunas Chachamim. And, prima facie, they contradict each other. And, generally, what does Emunah Chachamim have to do with acquisition of Torah?

But this is the matter: If they do not believe in the Chachamim, then they go over their words with light-mindedness and arrogance of folly, to say with a detached haughtiness: they didn't understand, and then the person does not toil to try to delve and establish their words, and in the end it becomes clear that we made the mistake, and not them. And therefore it is among the ways of wisdom to believe that they did not err Chas VeShalom, only that we are myopic and lacking in Daas. But to believe, just like that, without exerting the mind with delving into the matter, and thought, just to say: they knew and we can rely on them without thinking - that is also incorrect, rather we should discuss the matter with contradictions and doubts as if (emphasis mine) they were people like us, and through that we reach a greater profundity and penetrating delving. So, both of these attributes, Emunas Chachamim and discussion to the nth degree, bring about acquisition of Torah."

Rabbeinu Yonah on Too Much Blogging and Frivolous Blogs

2006-11-23T19:12:00.000-05:00

Shaarei Teshuva III:177

(With the commentary of R' Matisyahu Salomon Shlit"a):

The fourth group - one who constantly spends time, in a non-fleeting way, for empty chatter and idle matters, as is the manner of Yoshvei Keranos (idle people).

RMS - This Letz we are speaking of does not harm or damage others, only that is his business which he deals with all day.

And there are two things wrong with this: First, 'Anyone who says too much brings about sin'.

RMS - It is impossible that he will not come to sin, either the sin of Leitzanus or Lashon Hara etc

And, secondly - that he is wasting time from Torah study. And there is, in this matter, the pathway of death, for how does he not pay attention that during those times that he is destroying, he can achieve pleasantness and acquire eternal life, if he designates those non-fleeting times to Torah, during which he is free from his work and his affairs. This is only that his heart disdains Mitzvos and the reward of Olam Haba.

RMS - A person like this is in the definition of Bal Tashchis, for he is destroying and wasting time, for anything which has value, and he wastes it, is considered Bal Tashchis. And so too regarding time, in which there is benefit to do good things during that time.

And besides that he lost much good, he will also bear his sin, for the guilt of wasting time from Torah when he has the ability to study it is a fire which consumes to the point of annihilation, as it says: 'For he has denigrated the word of Hashem - this is anyone who can learn Torah and does not do so, as we have prefaced.

And they, Zichronam LiVrachah, said, 'One who goes to a place where there is a gathering for light-headed joviality, this is a Moshav Leitzim. And about this the Passuk writes: 'And he did not sin in a Moshav Leitzim. And it says after this: 'Only in the Torah of Hashem is his desire - you learn, then, that Moshav Letzim causes Bittul Torah. And one who does not pay attention to this, to learn Torah is his free hours, should awaken himself and not be lost, and he should seclude himself during those times to think about his end,and to understand what will be his end, and to search through his ways, to acquire the (higher) levels of the soul and to draw close to Hashem Yisbarach.