Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Musings & Observations

An Atheist Who Loves Orthodox Jews

rabbifink — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:17:08 +0000

I must share with you a beautiful article that brought tears to my eyes. Someone, I don’t remember who, linked to this article and it popped up in my Twitter feed. Luckily I clicked and eventually read the article. So whoever you are, thanks for sharing!

The article is written by a Jewish atheist. When her only child moved out of the house she took up babysitting. Her favorite clients are orthodox Jews.

Why?

In her own words:

An Orthodox Jewish upbringing makes for smart, engaged, articulate, and imaginative kids. Orthodox Jewish children—at least the ones in my upscale suburb—don’t spend endless hours in front of televisions and computers. They read! They play! They pretend! They converse! Hannah Montana means nothing to them. Children like this are increasingly rare in our pop-culture-adoring, screen-addicted world.

This is all true. It’s a side benefit to being religious and using Torah values to raise a family. Sure, believers do mitzvos out of a sense of obligation but done right, the lifestyle of mitzvah observance should influence an emphasis on good values.

There are two important points to take away from this article.

First, observant families should not lose sight of these alternative benefits to a wholesome, orthodox Jewish life. This means we cannot forget to nurture that positive home environment. We cannot just look to mitzvah observance and Torah study as the only attractions to our lifestyle. We have to focus on the home as well. Shabbos meals should be cherished and cultivated as opportunities for family bonding and community building. The positive lessons of Torah and mitzvos should be emphasized. There should be less focus on the boogeyman goyim or the evil media or the dangerous heretics. We have a beautiful life. Live it for its own sake.

I believe this is a missing ingredient in orthodox Jewish education. We should be teaching our children that our lifestyle is beautiful on its own. Even without magical rewards or special prizes in the next world. There is value in the acts themselves when they are part of a healthy observant lifestyle. There is a humanist aspect to orthodox Judaism that carries with it tremendous beauty. I cannot stress this enough.

This also becomes a charge that we must be living that beautiful life. Shady business practices, poor ethics, bad manners, or other social flaws should be strongly discouraged. The more pleasant and pleasing our lifestyle can be, the more we stand a chance of imparting that beauty to our children and grandchildren without coercion or isolation.

Second, this is an absolutely refreshing article from an atheist. The stereotype of atheists that portrays them as cold and antagonistic to all religious people is just as ugly and incorrect as any other stereotype. As the article suggests, this atheist is a loving, warm and open person. She is able to learn from and appreciate a live she would never live herself. She compliments those with whom she disagrees theologically. That’s something we can all learn from as well.

It must feel good for her to retain some connection with the religion of her ancestors and her distant Jewish cousins. I am happy for her that she is able to connect with these orthodox Jewish children. I am even happier that she sees the beauty of a life that many within the community fail to see or fail to live by.

Her words are inspiring and they made me emotional. I hope you enjoy the article as much as I did.

Link: Women’s Voices for Change

The Shabbaton Choir is Amazing

rabbifink — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:48:17 +0000

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a historic event. The new building of a synagogue in Los Angeles, to be more precise, North Beverly Hills, opened its doors for the first time. Young Israel of North Beverly Hills dedicated their new shul at an inspiring ceremony.

Founding President of Pacific Jewish Center, Michael Medved was the Master of Ceremonies for a speaking lineup that included members of congress and local government. The keynote address was magnificently delivered by Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks.

It was a beautiful event and a ceremony befitting such an auspicious day.

The highlight for me was the live performance by the Shabbaton Choir. They sang several stirring songs and had the crowd buzzing. They were phenomenal. Their style is a mix of cantorial and chamber music that is not often associated with Jewish music. Most people think of Klezmer music as the Jewish music standard. Others, from Sephardic backgrounds think of middle-eastern music as Jewish music. Orthodox Jews in the 21st century think of the pseudo-pop-rock Jewish music as Jewish music.

The Shabbaton Choir has a different take. It is a beautiful take too.

Here is one song they sang yesterday that I really loved.

As you can see and hear, this is not typical Jewish music by any commonly held definition of Jewish music.

I think there is a unique quality to this kind of music that is lacking in the other forms of Jewish music, at least to my ears. This certainly applies to the pseudo-pop-rock version of music that is most prevalent in orthodox circles. The other Jewish music is mostly marketed as an alternative to non-Jewish music. It’s entertainment. The music is designed to distract, keep one busy, lighten a mood, or inspire. The music does not feel like an end to itself, rather it is a means to some other purpose. That’s fine. I have no problem with it and I even enjoy it from time to time (-usually the older stuff).

But Shabbaton is doing something different, at least that’s how it feels to me. They are using the music as worship. The music is not being used to inspire. It is the act of singing that is fulfilling a need to serve God. In other words, the singing is for its own sake. To sing. The music is uplifting, but I don’t think that is their purpose. I think they are singing as an act of praise to serve and love God. That’s very different.

It reminded me of something I wrote about here: Book Review | Sacred Trash

Throughout the centuries, Jews have developed various social ways of expressing themselves as they worship God. [Please read what I wrote in Book Review | Sacred Trash in the last couple of paragraphs for a fuller explanation of this idea.] The Shabbaton Choir is using their song in this manner. Their singing is like the Talmud study of the yeshiva student or the meditations of the chasid. I love the idea of singing as worship and I love the perfect execution of this idea by the Shabbaton choir.

It is a joy to experience first hand. I encourage you to experience it for yourself as well. Their music is available on iTunes and they have some videos on YouTube.

(This is an unsolicited blog post. Just my pure thoughts.)

Links: Shabbaton Choir Website, YouTube, iTunes

WWJD?

rabbifink — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:07:21 +0000

Politicians from the Right often cite God or Jesus as a basis for political positions. Some even make the claim that they are running for office upon the advise of God Himself.

Now, it is impossible for God to have told more than one particular person that they are destined to be the next president. So either all but one are lying or they are all lying. You decide.

Either way, the whole concept of appealing to God’s authority in politics is very silly. The reason it is silly is because none of these people have had any specific revelation. Rather, they apply their interpretations of ancient texts, or worse, their personal feelings or emotional stirrings and claim that these are Divine messages. What makes matters even fuzzier is that politicians are usually businessmen or lawyers. They are not theologians or members of the clergy. Their understanding of their own religions is as basic as the average American’s understanding of their religions. Their understanding of other religions is even poorer.

Case in point: President Obama invoked the teachings of Jesus as a basis for taxes. The response has been vicious. Most of the criticism has been because of the seeming transparent pandering to the religious voters. This is a valid criticism. But only to a point. Politicians are professional panderers. We just don’t like it when we can tell.

The more important point, that is being overlooked, is how religious beliefs are able to conform to political positions. It’s too easy to make an argument for almost any predetermined position using religious faith or texts. The stories are obscure, the analogies are tenuous and the bias is overwhelming. It’s to the point that I can’t take any appeal to religion seriously. Further, not everyone wants to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those same teachings were used as a tool for death and destruction for hundreds of years.

Are taxes some form of charity, as Obama suggests? Maybe. But religion is not going to provide the answer to that question.

Political policy should be based on reasoning that is free from religious influence. It should not be guided by love for God or religion nor should it be guided by disbelief in God or hatred for religion.

But I don’t blame politicians. I blame the religious fervor of American citizens that demands that their politicians double as religious leaders. It’s foolish to assume that politicians know enough about religion to have intelligent opinions on theological matters. We should stop demanding it. Along the same lines, we should not turn to one specific version of a religion to solve our problems or as a basis for setting policy. At best, it is silly and at worse it is offensive.

I think the other speaker at the event at which the president spoke had good advice. Eric Metaxas suggested we remove phony religiosity from public discourse. Since it is all phony, I say we remove it all.

Link: NY Times

A Friend Remembers Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg | A Guest Post

rabbifink — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:06:35 +0000

What follows is a guest post written by my illustrious grandmother. Readers of this blog will remember her from here: This Blog Post is in Honor of (one of) My Incredibly Accomplished Grandmother(s). As I mentioned in my post about Rebbetzin Weinberg (Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg, Of Blessed Memory), my grandmother was a close friend of the rebbetzin. As a favor to me, and now all of you, she has shared some first hand insight on this incredible woman.

Today marked the end of Shiva for Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg. The Shiva house resounded to the stories told by the many people whose lives had been touched by Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg. She was larger than life and as people shared their anecdotes and memories it became obvious that none of us knew the full extent of her many faceted life. She was brilliant, mesmerizing and her stock in trade was she would not take no for an answer. She was a gifted teacher, activities coordinator for a nursing home and a leader whenever she found herself. Probably the most resounding thread in the stories was how one woman changed so many things.

She championed women who suffered lives of abuse. From her indignant exclamation to me about one Rav who asked an abused woman what she had done to provoke her husband to her comments after meeting with a group of rabbonim who refused to acknowledge any spousal abuse in the frum community –“I have to make them see what is in front of them.” She would return to Baltimore after one of her out of town meetings and say I am making headway with them (not telling you that the “them” was a group of prominent rabbonim) Nothing would keep her from her mission—ailments or injuries were a nuisance not an impediment. She told me once she had asked her father (Rav Ruderman Ztz”l), what they did in Slabodka when women were abused. His response was “they closed the shutters”. She would shake her head and say that is not acceptable.

Due to her efforts there is a safe house for women in Baltimore and an awareness of the extent of the issue around the country. She traveled spoke, and cajoled, and remonstrated everywhere. As I said she would not take no for an answer. If someone said “no you cannot do that” she would say “Why not” When she realized that the Ladies Auxiliary of Ner Israel, an organization started by her mother which had been a support to the Yeshiva for years, had an aging membership and was not attractive to the young women she rejected the suggestion to intensify the membership drive to attract younger women and instead began the Ner Israel Service League, an organization led by young Kollel wives to promote the Yeshiva. As she said, the young women needed their own organization.

Along with her leadership skills and dedication to the Klal she was also a woman who appreciated beauty and order. Her table was beautiful, her food was delicious, her grooming impeccable. She appreciated art and attractive household items. She was a voracious reader and her choice of reading material was eclectic. She told me how important she felt it was for frum women to always leave their home neat, clean and presentable (and with their lipstick refreshed)!

At the Shiva House several individuals told of how she had mentored them when they came to Ner Israel as young wives and how she had inspired them One common theme was that of someone who told the rebbetzin they were going home for Pesach. Where are you going she would ask —“Home” they would say. No, she would insist. You are going to visit your parents — home is here with your husband. She delighted in each new baby and welcomed each new couple, always impressing upon them that they were home. She taught Shalom Bayis by modeling it — her kovod for the Rosh Yeshiva her husband, and the Rosh Yeshiva, her father, her attention to their needs, and always making her family the centerpiece of her life. She did not like to be dependent, so she chose to work outside the home. She brought her special brand of compassion and leadership to all her positions and made a true Kiddush Hashem wherever she was. She would say, I have to find a visitor for Mrs. — because no one comes to see her, or I have to call — family, the best medicine for their mother would be a rotation of visitors so she is not exhausted on Sunday and lonely the rest of the week. Baltimore and the entire Jewish community are greater because she said “why not?”.

She was the wonderful woman with a pithy sense of humor, the woman who always had good advice. the woman with an occasional irreverent chuckle about current events, the woman who loved Chinese food. the woman who would always go the extra mile for a friend. The woman who called me when Rami Fink (ed: my eldest son) was born to say “Welcome to the club” and I said “what club” and she said “The great-grandparents club what a special zchus to get there — and to even have him in town! (Ed: We lived in Baltimore for about a year and half after Rami was born before moving to LA.) Give him a hug and kiss for me”. Women like her are a rarity. She did more in a week than many people did in a month and more in a year than many do in a lifetime. Sitting and talking in her home, going out to dinner, sharing insights about a book, reminiscing about days gone by or just sharing anecdotes about the children and grandchildren. Just a few short weeks ago I brought dinner to her house which we ate and laughed and joked with her daughter Aviva — the oxygen machine was annoying, but it would be better, the beautiful smile and bright eyes still dominated. Such special times — they will remain in my memory.

There will be biographies and articles about this special rebbetzin – but they will never capture the full scope of this remarkable woman – the world will miss the rebbetzin – but I miss my special friend. Chana.

Walking the Tightrope of Tough Love

rabbifink — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:26:08 +0000

The Jewish Week has an exposé on the controversial Rosh Yeshiva of a certain yeshiva in Israel. For purposes of this blog post, it is irrelevant who this person is and what yeshiva he presides over. I have not met this rabbi nor have I ever been in his yeshiva. I have no personal experience to draw from. The issue I would like to address is a general issue brought to light in discussions about this rabbi (and others).

Examples of behavior by this rabbi include, emotional manipulation, intense yelling, embarrassment in public, forcing boys to wait for him for hours on end after he called them in for a meeting, insulting students, gathering information from student’s therapists, among other anti-social behaviors all designed to elicit change in the recipient of the abuse. I call it abuse because without justification it certainly is abusive. The question is whether or not there is justification.

The claim has been made that the rabbi is a genius or savant who understands human nature so well that there is a method to the madness. It usually works. Sometimes it does not. The victims of cases where it does not work are the ones who speak out. The others are appreciative that it did work and claim that the rabbi is amazing.

Similar claims have been made about other rabbis. Sometimes the rabbis are too touchy-feely. They hug or kiss their students in a non-sexual way and for many this is a welcome sign of affection. For others it is abuse. Other rabbis have been said to have hit students. Sometimes the hitting was playful or with camaraderie, like when an athlete congratulates another athlete with more force than the average person can bear. Other times the hitting is unequivocally abusive.

I find these sorts of claims, whether emotional or physical or sexual to be under one broad category. I think they show poor judgment on the part of the rabbi. I don’t think they show absolute abuse. However, in the absence of proper judgment some of the acts or even many of the acts may have been abusive. In other words, I don’t think rabbis with wacky methodologies are intrinsically evil. Nor do I think that their successes justify their sometimes erroneous behavior.

We all make mistakes. I am sure these rabbis would admit to having made mistakes in their dealings with people. We all do. Rabbis are human. They should be held to the standard of human beings. That is, the standard of people who err and regret things they have done. People are complex. They are not all good, nor are they all bad. Trying to put this rabbi in either of those categories is folly.

What bothers me most are the absolutists.

On the one hand you have people saying the man should be fired, removed, lynched, exposed, no matter what. On the other hand you have people explaining away all the wrong things that occur because “he’s a genius” or because he knows exactly what he is doing. Neither of these positions is reasonable.

If the rabbi has done something illegal, morally repugnant or harmful to a student we would not be having this conversation. He has not. Rather, he has tread a fine line of questionable behavior. If that line is crossed there are ways to handle it. But that does not mean that in the meantime the acts should be hidden. Nor does it mean that he should be given a free pass.

As always, balance is the key. Some people work best in non-conventional ways. Students know what they are in for when they sign up to learn in the rabbi’s yeshiva. That does not give the rabbi license to do as he pleases with no regard for human life. It means if you don’t want to be in that kind of environment, don’t go. But if this rabbi even puts one toe over the line, he begins a walk down a treacherous path. It is difficult to live that kind of life. It’s his life, he can choose to try to pull it off. To this point, there is no evidence he has crossed the line. But Lord help him, if he does.

In the meantime, I think it would wise for the rabbi to tone it down. I don’t know if he can, or if he wants to. But that would be my advice. If he is such a genius of human nature, I am sure he will figure out how to help his students while avoiding questionable behavior.

Link: Google it yourself

Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg, Of Blessed Memory

rabbifink — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:19:15 +0000

Photo: Lloyd Wolf

Yesterday, Rebbeztin Chana Weinberg passed away. She was a heroic woman and an important figure in the lives of many people including my father and grandmother. Her public claim to fame may have been her pedigree as a daughter of Rabbi Ruderman and the wife of Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg. But to those who knew her or knew of her, Rebbetzin Weinberg was a person worthy of individual accolades and recognition separate from her illustrious father and husband.

Personally, I did not have a relationship with the Rebbetzin. I do have many fond memories of meeting her, being in her home and hearing of her greatness. As a young child I remember visiting the Rosh Yeshiva with my father and I remember him making a point of telling me that part of the visit was to see the Rebbetzin as well. We were not just visiting the Rosh Yeshiva and she happened to be there too. We were visiting her as well.

It’s interesting to me that one of the things I remember most about Rabbi Weinberg was his vibrant smile. I have the same kind of memory of the Rebbetzin. Her warmth exuded from her smile. Oftentimes, young children find elderly people scary. I only remember pleasant and loving vibrations from my early visits with the Rebbetzin.

When I was in high school at the yeshiva, I scored a rare (for a high school boy) invitation to a Yom Tov meal at the home of the Weinbergs. Part of this was my friendship with their grandson and another part of it was my father’s relationship with the Rebbetzin. The meal was exhilarating on every level. I will always remember and cherish that experience.

My grandmother also had a special relationship with the Rebbetzin. They talked often. Sometimes it was personal. But other times it was professional. My grandmother is a psychologist and the Rebbetzin spent her free time offering counseling, advice and advocacy for battered and abused women in the orthodox Jewish community. From what I understand, they helped each other help others. The Rebbetzin made this one of her passions and did a tremendous amount of good for women who needed the strength they could only find in themselves with the Rebbetzin’s love and care.

I will always remember her eloquence and elegance. All my encounters with the Rebbetzin were inspiring.

I know that her passing will be hard for those who came to depend on her and their relationship with her. On a personal note, I feel a sense of loss for my father and grandmother for whom this loss is like losing a close relative and friend.

As Rabbi Ahron Feldman said in his eulogy, the Rebbetzin was a gadol in her own right. A true leader of the Jewish people.

The Rebbetzin leaves behind a legacy of love and devotion to her family, her father’s students, the entire Jewish people and the world. She led a life that was dedicated to others in a unique way. She will be missed by all.

Forced Assimilation in Israel

rabbifink — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:17:04 +0000

Ethiopian Jews Arriving in Israel During Operation Solomon

One of my favorite things about visiting Israel is the diversity of Jewish people, practices and customs. In particular, the Kotel is a special place for so many Jewish people and even non-Jewish people. I always marvel at the beauty of the stones and all the people there to soak in their glory.

The only shul that I know of that rivals the Kotel in diversity is the Shul on the Beach where I am the rabbi. It really is remarkable. It is not quite the diversity of the Kotel, but Pacific Jewish Center is probably a slightly distant second.

Unfortunately, there are some people who do not value diversity. Some people desire uniformity in action, thought and dress. The latest victim of this attitude was chronicled in a recent AP article.

The Israeli rabbinate has proclaimed that the Ethiopian Jewish community religious leaders, called kessoch, no longer be recognized by the State of Israel. The control over who is recognized as a legitimate spiritual leader in Israel is in the hands of the Rabbinate.

At this point, most, if not all of the kessoch have abandoned their traditional dress and now conform to the standard of Ashkenazik rabbis who wear dark suits, white shirts and black hats. Traditionally, the kessoch worse turbans and clothing that is appropriate for a community with roots in North Africa.

Some of their customs were already abandoned when they emigrated to Israel. These were customs that varied greatly from the practiced version of orthodox Judaism in Israel. But now, they are being forced to completely assimilate into the dominant version of Judaism in Israel.

This is not a matter of whether or not the Ethiopian Jews are legitimate. The working assumption is that they have converted if necessary and are now full-fledged Jews. The issue is that once they are Jews, they are not being permitted to have official rabbis who hail from their communities. These communities were self regulated and ruled for hundreds and hundreds of years. Now, they are being forced to give that up.

I find it sad and ironic the Jews are forcing assimilation on other Jews.

Link: ABC News

Some Ammunition for Moderates in the Battle Over Modesty

rabbifink — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:15:42 +0000

So much excellent writing has come forth due to the controversy over Beit Shemesh and Meah Shearim. This week two additions to the genre found themselves at the top of the heap.

Both authors are rabbis. Neither are rabbis that are appreciated or recognized by anyone (or almost no-one) in the right wing orthodox Jewish community. That’s a shame because their message is valuable for the RWOJ community and they will not read or pay heed to these articles because they come from outside.

There is room to quibble over details within these articles but I think we can all agree that the sentiments are important and at the very least deserve a response if not agreement.

The first article was written by Rabbi Marc Angel. In his article, Rabbi Angel proposes modern tznius guidelines that do not change halacha but do change social expectations. In his words:

The goal should be to create frameworks for normal interactions between men and women, where men and women conduct themselves properly without reducing each other to mere objects of sexual attraction.

Two things. First of all, I don’t think this is a fair characterization. I don’t think the complete social separation of men and women automatically reduces people to sex object. I do think this is one possible result of many.

Second of all, this is never going to happen. Unfortunately.

I once made a relevant comment to a friend of mine as we observed a kiddush celebrating the birth of a child / grandchild in a home where there were separate entrances for men and women and once inside, the men were in one room and the women were in a completely separate room. We were discussing the difference between this kind of celebration and one outside the RWOJ community. Absolute separation of married men and women is seen as necessary in the RWOJ. The rationale is usually something like “if men and women fraternize together, it will lead to sin”. But the truth is that men and women socialize together all the time and they don’t sin. Yet, this perception persists in the RWOJ community.

Rabbi Angel hits it on the head. RWOJ do not envision a framework for men and women to engage in normal interactions. If this changes then perhaps other things will change too. I just don’t see it happening.

The second article is much more prominent as it appeared in the NY Times. This article was written by Rabbi Dov Linzer, the Rosh Yeshiva of Chovevei Torah which makes his words less meaningful than a republican senator in the eyes of a RWOJ. But he also makes some good points that are worth exploring.

In making his main point, Rabbi Linzer raises the conundrum of sexual purity in the religious context: Who is responsible for licentious thoughts about immodest women?

…the Talmud, the basis for Jewish law, offers a perhaps surprising answer: It places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.

This is true and as Rabbi Linzer develops this point he places the focus on men who over-sexualize women as opposed to women who may not dress in accordance with tradition.

Although, I would add that halacha in general speaks to men. There is no section in the Talmud or Code of Jewish Law that tells women how they should dress and behave in the public sphere. It is only in from the perspective of the men that we are given clues to what is expected of women. So, it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from omissions in the sources on this matter.

But all in all, I do agree with Rabbi Linzer. However, it is unfortunate that this is in the NY Times. At least it has not made their list of Most E-Mailed Articles.

I realize that these article will read like Chinese to RWOJs who measure skirt length with a tznius ruler and examine the denier of stockings. But maybe, just maybe, if an opposite perspective presented eloquently and forcefully the attitudes will slowly change.

Please read and share these articles. At the very least they will engender (hehe) discussion about these issues in a meaningful way. If you go to RWOJ shul, see what happens if you print these articles and give them to some friends in shul. That might be interesting…

Links: Rabbi Angel, Rabbi Linzer

I Kind Of Feel Bad For Rabbi Shmuley

rabbifink — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:50 +0000

I’ll be honest. There is very little that I like about Rabbi Shmuley. I rarely agree with his perspectives on life, Jews and Judaism. But recently I find myself defending him in my mind against the latest round of accusations against him.

Rabbi Shmuley has written a book called Kosher Jesus. The book is a retelling of Jesus based on some (fringe) historical research. The book portrays the true Jesus as a man who was mostly a Torah abiding Jew but sought to establish a niche within Judaism for his personal views and style. He was later, much later, hijacked as a deity by followers of his teachings in an effort to rebel against Judaism and start a new religion.

At least that is what I was able to gather from the descriptions of the book on various websites. That’s because, despite what you may think, THE BOOK HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED.

I know this might come as a shock seeing as how Rabbi Shmuley has already been branded as a heretic for writing a book that almost no one has read. In article after article, I have seen calls for Rabbi Shmuley to be ousted from Judaism or worse because of what he has ostensibly written. And this is why I come to his defense.

Screeds against a man who has written a book that has not been read by the ones raving against him. I have seen this movie already. It doesn’t end well for anyone.

Criticism and discussion are important parts of any functioning society. Just open the Talmud and you’ll see many opinions and reasoning that explains those opinions that we do not follow today. It’s a discussion. There is argument. But what you won’t find is rabbis calling for someone’s head because of a book title or brief dust jacket description. Further, if there is a point to be made, make the point! Yelling very loudly that Rabbi Shmuley is X and Y and therefore A, B and C must happen to him sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

How about this?

Read the book. Write a critique of the book based on actual research and facts. Then we can have a mature discussion about the issues.

My two cents:

I reserve judgment until I have read the book. (If I read the book at all.) But I am curious why this is the book Rabbi Shmuley chose to write. I know what he says in interviews or in his articles but it still doesn’t add up. I am concerned that the book may have just been written to be provacative, to gain publicity and generate controversy. I could be wrong. But that’s just how it smells to me.

One more cent:

In order for Jesus to become kosher, everything that Christians teach must be wrong. Is that really a road we want to go down?

Someone else’s two cents:

Read Rabbi Gil’s excellent post on the issue of a kosher Jesus here: Hirhurim

Spend more than two cents:

And buy the book here: Kosher Jesus

Links: Attack, Response, Attack Two, More

Rabbi J.H. Hertz’s Epic Introduction to the Talmud (with a little controversy mixed in)

rabbifink — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:53:51 +0000

I am indebted to Alan Brill of the Kavvanah blog for sharing this gem.

One of my favorite topics and themes in Judaism is understanding the structure and methodology of the Talmud. I am constantly looking for more sources and studying, adapting and adjusting my understanding of the issues. Until I read the post on Kavvanah I did not know about the introduction to the Talmud written by Rabbi J.H. Hertz. I read it and I loved it.

I strongly suggest you read the entire introduction. It is written beautifully and with such an inspiring view of the Talmud that it becomes required reading.

Some highlights:

Like nearly every one of the rabbis, he earned his bread by manual labour.

Speaking about the rabbis of the Talmud, R’ Hertz reminds us that the rabbis of the Talmud worked for a living. They studied when they were able. He wrote this before the standardization of kollel. But it is almost prophetically inspired.

Concerning the exact time at which the Mishnah was committed to writing, diversity of opinion has prevailed among eminent Jewish authorities during the last nine centuries.

I never knew this. But apparently, R’ Sherira Gaon and Rashi, among others held that the Mishna was not actually written down until the 8th or 9th century. I would love to see a citation for this. Either way, this is astounding to me. I was always taught that R’ Yehuda HaNassi codified AND wrote down the mishna. It seems that these authorities held that the Mishna was codified by R’ Yehuda HaNassi and was transmitted orally for a few hundred years before it was published in written form. Clearly, Rambam disagrees. Fascinating.

Here is the best part:

Halachah, as we have seen, means ‘the trodden path’, rule of life, religious guidance. To it belong all laws and regulations that bear upon Jewish conduct. These include the ritual, the civil, criminal, and ethical laws.

Everything else is embraced under the term Haggadah; literally, ‘talk’, ‘that which is narrated’, ‘delivered in a discourse’. This again can he subdivided into various groups. We have dogmatical Haggadah, treating of God’s attributes and providence, creation, revelation, Messianic times, and the Hereafter. The historical Haggadah brings traditions and legends concerning the heroes and events in national or universal history, from Adam to Alexander of Macedon, Titus and Hadrian. It is legend pure and simple. Its aim is not so much to give the facts concerning the righteous and unrighteous makers of history. as the moral that may be pointed from the tales that adorn their honour or dishonour.

That some of the folklore element in the Haggadah, some of the customs depicted or obiter dicta reported. are repugnant to Western taste need not be denied. ‘The greatest fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages. says Schechter, ‘is that they did not observe the wise rule of Dr Johnson who said to Boswell on a certain occasion, “Let us get serious, for there comes a fool”. And the fools unfortunately did come, in the shape of certain Jewish commentators and Christian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse. or represented the opinion of sonic isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience.’

In spite of the fact that the Haggadah contains parables of infinite beauty and enshrines sayings of eternal worth, it must be remembered that the Haggadah consists of mere individual utterances that possess no general and binding authority.

This is a loaded paragraph and one that today is considered highly controversial. R’ Hertz has the broad shoulders necessary to make such a statement and I admire him greatly for making it. What he is saying is that the Talmud has statements that are binding and many that are not. The difference between the two is whether or not they are halachic. Further, it should not be a surprise to anyone if the rabbis of the Talmud were inaccurate in their non-halachic statements. Some were mistakes, others were made for purposes other than for their truth. R’ Hertz charges those who take these non-serious statements with greater seriousness than they were intended as fools. I wouldn’t be so harsh. But I agree with the sentiment.

I wonder what would happen if a prominent rabbi wrote this today.

And finally another excellent line in conclusion:

My purpose is merely to give a brief presentation of the Talmud as a book. I shall therefore conclude with the words of I. Abrahams. ‘The Talmud,’ he says, ‘is one of the great books of the world. Rabbinism was a sequel to the Bible; and if, like all sequels, it was unequal to its original, it nevertheless shares its greatness. The works of all Jews up to the modern period were the sequel to this sequel. Through them all may be detected the unifying principle that literature in its truest sense includes life itself; that intellect is the handmaid to conscience; and that the best books are those which best teach men how to live. The maxim, Righteousness delivers from death, applies to books as well as to men. A literature whose consistent theme is Righteousness, is immortal.’

Through it all, the Talmud is one of the greatest books ever written. It’s true, the sequel is at least as good as the original. We follow the Talmud in our lives and the Talmud interprets the Torah. It’s world certainly seems different to the naked eye than the world of the Bible. Says, R’ Hertz, this is a good thing.

Above all, the Talmud is an attempt at righteousness and aids us all in our attempts towards the same.

Now go study!

Link: Halakhah.com

Also, buy R’ Hertz’s Chumash. It’s my personal favorite: Amazon.com

Judy Clark is on the Cover of the NY Times Magazine

rabbifink — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:46:17 +0000

Photos - Right: Nan Goldin for The New York Times. Left: Associated Press.

You may recall that I a little while ago I met and befriended an incarcerated woman named Judith Clark. See: My Visit With Judith Clark at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.

Judy is a Jewish woman who is serving a 75 year prison sentence for her role as a getaway driver in a famous Brinks truck robbery in my hometown of Monsey NY that left several men dead, some 30 years ago. The robbery was for the benefit of a far-left extremist group. Her sentence was severe and it was mostly because she treated the trial as an opportunity to make anti-government statements. She viewed herself as a martyr for her cause and did not cooperate during the proceedings.

Supporters of Judy were hoping for clemency last December. When that did not come, many of us were very disappointed. It seemed that her best chance at freedom had passed her by.

You may ask, why I would support clemency for a woman who played a role in several deaths. The short answer is that I don’t. The woman I met, the woman I support, is absolutely a different woman that the woman who participated in those heinous acts three decades prior. The Judy Clark from 1981 has been transformed into a new and improved Judy Clark. A woman, who by all accounts, gives every indication that she has been rehabilitated. Even the most cynical view is that she “only reformed herself to get out of prison”. But there is no doubt she has reformed.

It’s a rare case, where a person actually changes for the better while prison. It’s at least as rare as people who change their lives while not in prison. And we all know how hard and rare it is to change one’s life. Supporting Judy Clark is supporting the human spirit and its ability to improve. It is supporting a woman with an infectious smile and important message despite her shortcomings. I support a woman who admits her mistakes, regrets them very much and tries tirelessly to make a positive difference in others.

The article in the NY Times magazine is an in-depth look at Judy, her circumstances and her supporters. Two of those supporters mentioned in the article have become friends of mine through Judy. If you want a full picture of what happened in 1981, what happened in the 30 years since and the reactions from across the spectrum of supporters and opponents of Judy I strongly suggest reading the article.

Most of all, I urge you to consider what our justice system should do when someone in prison genuinely changes their life. When someone does teshuva and repents for what they have done, how long must they suffer for their previous errors?

Please read: NY Times Magazine

Listen to letters written on Judy’s behalf as read by some well known actors: Judithclark.org

Apropos of Nothing (well… maybe something): Rabbi Julie Schonfeld Edition

rabbifink — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:47:48 +0000

Rabbi Julie Schonfeld makes an outrageous claim and Ha’aretz runs with it.

The claim? A version of a siddur published in the 15th century contains the blessing she’asani isha v’lo ish. The blessing thanks God for making the one reciting the benediction a woman and not a man. Rabbi Schonfeld contends that:

“This Siddur proves that the degrading attitudes towards women, which we are seeing in certain extreme religious communities in Israel today, are a modern distortion of Judaism. Ironically, treatment of women in certain extreme sectors of the community is far more denigrating to women today than even the attitudes of the late Middle Ages.”

While I sympathize with Rabbi Schonfeld’s efforts in this regard, this siddur “proves” absolutely nothing of the sort. The siddur, which has been floating around the Internet for quite a few years now despite the attempt to portray this as an amazing new discovery, only proves that one woman had this siddur written on her behalf. It does not prove anything about the attitudes toward women in Medieval times.

Although, I would argue that the treatment of women in some Jewish communities in today’s day and age is not rooted in halacha as much as it is rooted in traditional, old-fashioned values that may or may not be compatible with halacha, Judaism or Torah. They are two separate things. But the siddur does not prove that. Nor does it prove that women were treated any better or worse in Medieval Europe.

The siddur, however does prove something very important in my eyes. It proves that the blessing of shelo asani isha is not as nefarious as it seems. See, if a woman is willing to say she’asani isha v’lo ish she must not feel that it is a degrading blessing. It would be extremely hypocritical for an oppressed group to turn around and use the same degrading terminology against the group that is oppressing them. It would be like civil rights activists in 1965 organizing a bus with black people in the front and white people in the back. Reversing the roles in degrading situations is hardly a fair or open-minded approach to the problem.

It seems, that neither the one who makes the blessing she’asani isha v’lo ish nor the one who makes the blessing shelo asani isha is meant to be degrading. Rather, both are blessings expressing appreciation for one’s place in life. Both blessing are ways of practicing the concept of being happy with one’s lot. Just like one can be happy as a man and not a woman, one can be happy as a woman and not a man. Even if one has more commandments than the other.

In my opinion, this single instance of a woman having her own blessing validates the blessing of shelo asani isha. It shows that the true meaning of blessing is that one blesses whatever their situation happens to be. It is not an expression of superiority, nor is it an expression of oppression. It is just a blessing.

I understand that this will not change the perception of the public. I do believe that the blessing of shelo asani isha appears offensive to outsiders (and even most to insiders who need to wrestle with apologetics to make it less offensive). I think the most effective way of preserving this ancient blessing is to understand what a blessing really is all about. Seeing a woman’s prayerbook with she’asani isha v’lo ish affirms to me that the blessing is not meant as a tziduk ha’din or an expression of having more mitzvos. Rather, it is an opportunity to thank God for one’s place in this world.

It is my hope that the public can accept that this blessing is not derogatory in intention or application. Rabbi Schonfeld’s new favorite siddur helps make that point.

Link: Ha’aretz

Also see: The Shelo Asani Isha “Discussion” (or does changing the liturgy remove one from orthodox Judaism?)

1001 Inventions Exhibit at the California Science Center

rabbifink — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:11:07 +0000

We did a family trip to the California Science Center at Exposition Park in Los Angeles yesterday. The museum is nice, albeit a bit outdated. Such is the fate of any museum that has exhibits of the latest and greatest in technology. Cell phones were a new obscure invention according to the exhibit on technology. Even better was the section describing how phone lines are not fast enough for video conferencing. Hehe.

Anyway, the highlights of the museum are the Hubble 3D IMAX movie and the temporary exhibit called 1001 Inventions. The IMAX was incredible. It told the story of the Hubble telescope and some of its most incredible discoveries. It was really powerful to see the beauty and seeming infinite scope of outer space. The 3D images of galaxies and galaxy clusters trillions of light years away is awe-inspiring. The 3D glasses, 9 story screen and excellent sound system make you feel like you are traveling through space. Simply remarkable.

1001 Inventions is an international project that demonstrates some of the technological marvels and advances contributed by the Arab world in the Middle Ages. In a time that is stereotyped as the Dark Ages in Europe, much “light” was found in Arab countries. Hundreds of ideas and inventions are part of the exhibit. It is modern and compelling and I really enjoyed it.

Socially, the exhibit attracted many Muslims and I found pleasure and inspiration exploring the exhibit side by side with devout Muslims.

Politically, I can anticipate that there are those who will object to the exhibit simply because it portrays Islam in a favorable light. It has become en vogue for social conservatives and progressives to battle over the imagery of Islam in America. Some people find it harmful that Islam be portrayed as peaceful or beneficial to society. Others bend over backwards to ignore Islamic extremism and oppression in Arab countries. I don’t think either of those approaches are wise or prudent, but that is neither here nor there.

When examining the exhibit through those lenses I think the exhibit was fair. It only spoke to technology and medicine and the scholarship within the Arab word during the Middle Ages. I think this is an message for Arabs and non-Arabs in 2012. It is important for non-Arabs because it reminds them (or informs them) that there is a rich history of wisdom and forward thinking in the Arab world. We need to be thankful for their contributions to society. It is important for Arabs because in its current iteration, it seems as thought the Arab community is mired in backwards thinking. Technology and progress are not priorities. Thinking and scholarship are not priorities either. Advances are not coming from the Arab world at the same rate as they come from Asia, Europe or America. It would be great if this exhibit inspired a return to scholarship and innovation that contributes to the good of the world community. With such a rich history, I would imagine reinvigorating efforts for progress would be natural.

The second take-away from the exhibit that I had was that it tried to show that relations between members of different religions were not always contentious. The best proof of this was the only non-Muslim or Arab with a prominent place in the exhibit. That would be the Maimonides display:

I found the description of Maimonides fair and positive. It might be a bit understated though. I think Maimonides was even more of an iconoclast than he is given credit for in the panel. A video accompanied this panel and went a bit more in depth than the panel. In general, I was very pleased that Maimonides was included in the exhibit.

I am sure that some will find nefarious intentions in his inclusions. Something along the lines of the “Muslims are stealing Maimonides” or something like that. But I think that is misguided and wrong. The text clearly says that he was a Jewish doctor. Most importantly, the text notes that he helped people of all faiths. Indeed, this is one of the legacies of Maimonides.

The exhibit is worth seeing if you are in LA or one of the other locations. If you have seen it, I am interested in your impressions of the exhibit.

Link: 1001 Inventions

Playing With Gender Roles

rabbifink — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:18:08 +0000

It’s hard to revert to more traditional blogging after focusing on various angles of the situation in Israel. So to ease our way back into topics of lesser importance we begin with a post about gender roles albeit, in a much more innocuous context.

LEGO was one of my favorite toys as a child. As an adult, it is still one of my favorite toys to buy for my children (and give them a hand when they need it). Clearly, LEGO skews to the male side of the spectrum. My sisters did not really play with LEGO as children. The data backs up their experience. More boys play with LEGO than girls.

A new marketing campaign and product strategy is trying to make LEGO more girly. The new sets are specifically geared toward girls with brighter colors and less weapons. The new product line is based on science. Boys and girls play differently. They need different LEGO sets.

This has prompted a discussion as to whether it is wise to play into gender stereotypes. No. It’s not what you are thinking. The reason not to perpetuate gender stereotypes is not because gender should be neutral until the child decides on a gender. The reason not to play into gender stereotypes is because boys who play with girly toys and girls who play with boy toys expand their horizons. They relate better with members of the opposite gender and they develop skills that help them become more well-rounded.

I can’t say this is a bad thing.

So creating LEGO that appeals to girls we are helping them play in a way that boys normally play. But by making it appealing for girls, girls are discouraged from playing with boys and they are discouraged from playing other boyish games. By playing into the stereotype we might actually be preventing girls from reaching their potential. Not to mention, how many boys are playing with girl toys? Or with girls? If it really is healthy, and the science seems to support this, perhaps we should encourage our boys to try games and toys that are normally for girls as well.

Orthodox Jewish communities have different approaches to how boys and girls interact with one another. The data suggests that not having interactions between boys and girls during the tender preadolescent years can have a negative affect on future interactions between boys and girls as they move through their teenage and adult years.

With the slow movement of the Orthodox Jewish community from schools with mixed classes until the older grades to complete separation between boys and girls after the age of 5 it could be that we have created a monster. A monster that manifests on these shores as a “shidduch crisis” and in the Holyland as segregated buses. Our anecdotal experience seems supported by data.

Links: NY Times 1 and 2.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman Responds to Yossi Sarid, Unconvincingly

rabbifink — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:32:03 +0000

Yesterday, I wrote about Yossi Sarid’s disgraceful article of vile hatred for halachic Judaism. I expressed my discomfort in writing a point by point response because when first started to write a point by point rebuttal, it came off as sounded apologetic and disingenuous. I was not able to articulate how and why Sarid was wrong in every one of his examples. I tried. But I was unsuccessful.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman also tried. His article is a lot like the one I was writing. It explains a few of the statements that Sarid misquoted or misinterpreted. More importantly it provides quite a few important sources that indicate reverence, respect and admiration for women in the Talmud. Clearly, Sarid ignores as many, if not more, sources than he barbarically wields in his unscrupulous attack on halacha.

This is great work by Rabbi Hoffman. But in the end all he has done is presented another side to the story. He has shown that the Talmud has statements that are praiseworthy or women and there are also statements that portray women negatively. This is because he does not refute the majority of Sarid’s sources.

I decided to analyze the debate systematically.

Saird mentions 16 negative sources in his article. Rabbi Hoffman addresses FOUR of them. Of the TWELVE he ignores, some of them are the most difficult to explain.

Rabbi Hoffman uses a variety of methods to refute the four sources he actually addresses.

Sarid says: “She is unfit for any public position with authority. “Thou shalt appoint a king over thee” – a king and not a queen.”

Rabbi Hoffman employs the “it is literal but it’s not so bad” argument. Meaning, yes it is true, but many other cultures and countries have had similar laws. Okay. Fair enough.

Sarid says: ” words of Torah should be burned rather than being given to women.”

Rabbi Hoffman correctly declares that this is out of context. It is true that the Talmud says this in the name of one rabbi, but since the Talmud actually addresses the question the woman asked that prompted the statement, clearly the rabbis felt that the question was a good question and this is really praise of a woman. While all of this is true, the statement remains in the text unchallenged. This is still offensive. Advantage Sarid.

Sarid mentions the prohibition against one who ” looks even at a woman’s little finger”.

Rabbi Hoffman explains that this is actually a preferred approach to women. In effect in ‘deobjectifies’ women because it ensures that women will not be looked at as pure objects of desire. In fact it ensures that women will not be looked at, at all. Not a great job by Rabbi Hoffman, he could have added that the translation of Sarid is not perfect. It would be more accurate to state that the prohibition is against “gazing” at a women with lust.

One of Sarid’s last complaints is the statement in the Talmud that “calls women”, and I quote, “a sack full of excrement”.

Rabbi Hoffman is absolutely correct here. Sarid willfully distorts this source. The Talmud is saying that EVEN if a woman was a “a sack full of excrement” a man would desire her physically. This is a statement about the strength of physical attraction. It is not a referendum on women. Sarid loses this one badly.

So in the four points of attack, Rabbi Hoffman argues valiantly. In some places he is better than others. But he does a good job.

The problem is that there are TWELVE more sources that go unaddressed. Among them, the most difficult to reconcile. Rabbi Hoffman does not address the law that prohibits women from testifying in court or becoming a judge, nor does he address the statement criticizing those who teach their daughters Torah. He ignores the obligation to save a drowning man before a drowning woman, he ignores the Talmud’s statement that allows men to divorce without his wife’s consent and the requirement that women be at her husband’s disposal when he desires her.

Some of these statements can be explained. Others really cannot. In some ways Sarid is right. The world does not look upon many of these laws and statements favorably.

In none of his explanations does Rabbi Hoffman invoke the argument that things may have changed since the time of the Talmud. In no place does he say that the statements in the Talmud are reflective of an ancient society and that we have evolved from that society into a more contemporary version of Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbi Hoffman is not willing to say, in any case, that these any of sources are actually offensive and have fallen into disuse or reinterpreted because they are offensive.

In my opinion, that might be the only way to answer some of the questions raised by Sarid. But for some, saying this amounts to kefira or at least knocks one out of orthodox Judaism. But isn’t it true? Have we not adapted and evolved since the times of the Talmud? I think we have. I think it is also futile to deny it. I would really love to see a bona fide, contemporary Torah authority legitimize this approach. I can dream, can’t I?

This approach will not answer all the questions either. It will not fix some of the built-in disadvantages that women encounter in halachic Judaism. But I think it is more honest and gives us a chance to continue to adapt and evolve if necessary and if our rabbinic leadership allows it. But freezing us in time as Rabbi Hoffman has done will not win every argument. In this case it only won four out of sixteen.

Link: VIN

If you want to see my handy dandy chart of the debate click here: Chart

Yossi Sarid Show Us the Ugly Side of Secular Extremism

rabbifink — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:05:17 +0000

I have a confession to make.

I read the recent op-ed written by Yossi Sarid and published in Haaretz. I found the article highly offensive, despicable and ugly. I thought I would “fisk” the article and counter each and every one of Sarid’s twisted, angry points. I got through about half of Sarid’s ugly diatribe and I was forced to quit. I could not win. I was unable to refute every one of his points without twisting myself, Chazal and halacha into a stale pretzel.

So I gave up.

Instead, I offer two independant points in this blog post inspired by Sarid’s disgraceful article.

Sarid’s main point is that the extremists in Israel are only applying the lessons that are taught in our holy tradition. He proceeds to quote several sources that demonstrate his view of the way Judaism treats women. A few of his sources are misquoted. A few others are opinions of one rabbi and not every rabbi. But by and large, one can build a solid case against orthodox Judaism’s approach to women using Sarid’s sources.

By pointing to these sources, Sarid proposes that the extremists are just following the logical conclusions of halacha and traditional Judaism. Therefore the problem is not the extremists, the problem is all Jews who adhere to halacha. All forms of Judaism that believe in the veracity of Torah are to blamed. This is akin to one of Hitchens’ more well-known arguments against religion. If extremists can follow the text of a religion and be bad people there is a flaw in the religion. Sarid lumps all Jews who follow halacha together. The extremists are extremists but only because they follow the same texts as I do, they just do it better.

Sarid is wrong. Dead Wrong. He is wrong because the extremists may be following the texts that he cites. But halachic Judaism does not follow those texts today. Yes. Believe it or not, even the most charedi of Jews do not have the same beliefs about women that some of our great rabbi had throughout our history. He claims that halacha prohibits teaching women Torah. This is obviously very easy to refute. Every orthodox Jewish woman studies Torah. This is an evolution of Judaism to conform to modernity. Some things are up for negotiation. Some things are not. But to represent orthodox Judaism as a whole by quoting a few obscure (and few less obscure) texts is ugly.

It is ugly because in practice, 99% of orthodox Jews don’t agree with the texts he quoted. The 1% who do are the extremists. Thus, is it disingenuous and provocative to lump all orthodox Jews together with regard to the way women are treated in orthodox Judaism. For this I am fuming with anger at Yossi Sarid. How dare he take a few quotes and a few crazies and paint the entire spectrum of orthodox Judaism with that brush? It is inexcusable. I hope he can find his way and retract his article. An apology would be appropriate as well.

The second point is that these texts do exist. They do need to be dealt with in a mature way. I am not qualified to dismiss these texts and I would not dare make a unilateral statement about these texts. But it would be wise for our rabbinic leadership (and by our rabbinic leadership, I mean the orthodox Jewish leadership from across the spectrum) to formulate responses and interpretations or dismissals of these texts. We need to have an approach that codifies the modern approaches that we have taken towards women over the last few centuries. The offensive texts cannot remain the only authoratative views on women.

It is clear and without a doubt that attitudes have changed towards women over the last 2500 years. This is not a Jewish phenomenon. Women have only had the right to vote and own land for a relatively short amount of time in the secular world. Jewish law has adapted as well. Women work outside the home. Women learn Torah. Women are expected to be treated with as much respect as one would like to be treated by others.

The problem is that the most authoratative sources that remain are those that are no longer followed by the majority of orthodox Jews. We need to educate ourselves and hateful people like Yossi Sarid that neither those texts, nor the extremists represent mainstream halachic Judaism.

I suggest you read Sarid’s diatribe. If only so that you should know what kind of perception one can have if one cherry picks from the traditional sources and to try to figure a way to explain these texts without becoming overly apologetic and without rejecting the sanctity of our tradition.

As much as I hate what the religious extremists are doing to pervert Torah Judaism, I hate what Yossi Sarid has written even more.

Link: Haaretz

How to Issue a Condemnation of Violence

rabbifink — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:57:46 +0000

Thugs and hoodlums from extremist religious groups in Israel have been terrorizing fellow Jews for some time now. They have done so without fear of condemnation or retribution from the religiously adjacent charedi community. This recent wave of violence is not new nor is it shocking or surprising.

Spitting on young girls, calling women whores, forcing segregation at bus stops and on buses are all acts cut from the same cloth as the violence at Manny’s Bookshop and a political beating in Meah Shearim. We’ve known about this for a while. Nobody has said a word.

However, this time the media found out about it. So now it’s national and international news.

This has prompted responses and condemnations from rabbis, rabbinic authorities and lay people. That’s great. Finally. The problem is that these condemnations are so weak, hedged and long-winded that they, in my opinion, are a failure.

There is only one way to condemn violence and abuse towards women. That would be something like this:

We strongly condemn any and all violence towards women under any and all circumstances. Those who commit such acts of violence will feel the full effect and power of the religious and secular court system. They will be excommunicated from all religious circles and are heretofore to be considered persona non grata. If you know of any individuals who have abused anyone, whether verbally or physically notify the police and rabbinic leadership immediately.

What we don’t need is an explanation of how these people are not “real charedim”. We don’t need poetry on the majesty of tznius. We don’t need snide remarks about the secular media. Just speak out against violence, promise retribution and to take action.

Enough with the apologetics and handwringing.

Feel free to copy and paste my version of an appropriate condemnation on all the blogs and news sites that have published the watered down condemnations to this point. If you can, please credit this blog. Thanks.

Links: NY Times, Cross-Currents, YWN

Chanukah Party 2011 Photos and Wrap-up

rabbifink — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:05:11 +0000

Pacific Jewish Center enjoyed another excellent Chanukah party planned and executed by Jeff Liss and his wonderful helpers. The party featured delicious Chanukah foods and treats, dreidel contests, a moon bounce for the kids, entertainment for everyone courtesy of Derek the Mime a speech from the rabbi and most of all, lovely company.

As usual, the party was open to the Pacific Jewish Center community and to the public as part of our Outreach on the Beach programming. The community was well represented with an excellent showing at the party. With our doors wide open at on Venice Boardwalk we also met and made many old and new friends. People who had been in the shul before returned this afternoon. One woman had been in the shul in the 50′s and had not been back since. Others were old friends who were part of our community for many years before moving on. It was so nice to see them all. We also met many new people. Some were local Jewish residents who had just never had a chance to come to shul and others were travelers and tourists, some Jewish and some not at all.

It was a beautiful afternoon. We thank everyone who came and who contributed to the festive and celebratory atmosphere.

If you missed the party, you can listen to my speech here: What Doomed the Hasmoneans?

And you can feel like you were there by watching the slide show below. Hopefully, next time you will be there in person.

PJC Chanukah Party 2009 Wrap Up and Photos

Chanukah and Separation of Church and State

rabbifink — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:12:49 +0000

Separation of Church and State is widely regarded as a modern concept. For most of the world this is an accurate assessment. In some places in the world there remains no separation. What I mean by a separation between church and state is that quite simply there are two different and exclusive bodies that legislate religion and politics. Political leadership is vested in one person or group and religious considerations are seen to by a different person or group.

In the United States, I believe separation of church and state is a misnomer. It’s not that there is a separation as much as the state has no opinion on religion. I think that a truer version of a separation between church and state originated with ancient Judaism.

The law was that the political leadership of the Jewish people flowed through the Davidic family of the tribe of Judah. The religious leaders in ancient Israel were the priests and the Levites who were are members of the tribe of Levi. These two groups were separate. This separation of powers was to ensure that no group had absolute power. It created a balance between political and domestic interests and religious interests. It was a good system and I believe the model for today’s separation.

The story of Chanukah tells the tale of the Hasmonean family rebelling against the oppressive Seleucid-Greeks. This family was a priestly family. They sough to restore honor and holiness to the Temple. They also sought political autonomy from the Seleucid-Greeks.

They won both.

At that moment that they won they should have appointed a Davidic heir to the throne. But they failed to do so. A Hasmonean was anointed king and this began a slow fall from grace for the Hasmoneans. Not one Hasmonean remained after several generations of intetmarriage and intra-violence. The Rabbis of the Talmudic era cite their error in taking the throne as the reason for their ultimate collossal failure.

Indeed, the Hasmoneans did not separate church and state. They were the kings and the priests at the same time and carried absolute power. As time has proven time and time again, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Hasmoneans ended up in the scrap heap of history because of their failure in this regard.

There are two kinds of candles on our Chanukah menorah. There are the candles that we light each light. On the first night we light one and the second night we light two and we continue adding candles for eight night. By lighting these candles we fulfill a religious obligation to light these candles as instituted by the great rabbis of the Mishnah. We light candles and create holiness.

However there is another candle. The shamash is the candle we use to light the nightly candles. It does not factor into the religious nightly lighting. It is a functional candle, not a holy candle. It is a candle whose name, shamash can mean “caretaker”. The shamash is the lighter. But it is not the candle of the mitzvah.

Perhaps, the requirement that we use a shamash was a wink from the rabbis of the Mishnah reminding us why the Hasmoneans were such a disaster. They did not separate the political from the religious. The functional and holy were too closely intertwined. The political leaders were from the same family as the religious leaders.

Chanukah remembers their initial success but the lighting of the Chanukah candles reminds us of their ultimate failure. They did not separate church and state. On our Chanukah menorah we do separate church and state. We light holy candles to do a mitzvah. We light those candles with a separate, purely functional candle.

I’m not quite sure how to relate this idea to contemporary Chanukah celebrations and the current state of Jewish affairs. But I am pretty sure there is a message in there that reminds us that sometimes we and our leaders need to hear alternative voices. That a kinas sofrim among Jews is a good thing and helps us fine tune our personal observance. There cannot be just one way, with one leadership, with one set of ideas. There must be multiple voices. There can’t be absolute power because is absolutely corrupts. Just ask as the shamash.

No related posts.

♫ The Driver on the Bus Says “Move on Back” ♫

rabbifink — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:19:15 +0000

In the United States of America the Supreme Court has held that “separate but equal” is inherently discriminatory. ~~Back in the dark ages,~~ I mean 60 years ago, white and black people in many states and cities were required to dine, shop, use the restroom and ride the bus separately. Riding in the back of the bus has become identified with discrimination.

Is it any wonder that when Hillary! Clinton, feminist extraordinaire, expressed her dismay when she heard that a democratic country like Israel had bus routes that were segregated by gender. On several bus routes in Israel men are in the front and women ride in back.

Hillary!’s comments drew the ire of many religious Jews. To them, this was such a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and so unrelated to foreign affairs that Hillary! could only have been commenting on the bus situation because she is a jerk / anti-Semite / hates Israel / liberal / feminist / whatever. Now, I concede that Hillary! probably should not have created a big deal out of the segregated buses. However, I agree with her dismay.

There are three very big problems with these segregated buses.

1) They are illegal. I am indebted to Noah Roth for summarizing the Supreme Court of Israel’s ruling that public transportation may not be segregated. The reasoning for the holding is similar to the separate is not equal argument that was made in Brown v. Board of Education in the Supreme Court of the United States. The bus drivers are not supposed to let the bus riders enforce a “voluntary” segregation and there is litigation in the lower Israeli courts right now attempting to force the drivers to enforce the law.

2) They are halachically unnecessary. Halachically speaking, there is no requirement for segregation between men and women. Some will argue that men and women are not allowed to touch each other and incidental touching is very likely to occur in a crowded bus. This has already been deemed a non-issue by R’ Moshe Feinstein (Even HaEver 5:14). In his responsa, R’ Moshe says that incidental touching on a bus is not a problem because it is not “derech chiba” which means that it is not intimate touching. (Again, HT Noah Roth for the cite.)

3) Segregated buses are a big deal with minimal benefit. Let’s assume that “kedushas einayim” is a super-vital element of worshiping God. (I believe it is overblown, but lets pretend that it’s not overblown for a moment). Does that mean that it is more valuable than many other Torah values? Does that mean that it is more important to have one’s eyes averted by default than it is to demean women?

If you are an apologist, you are saying to yourself that the women volunteer to move to the back, so what is the big deal? The big deal is the message it sends. It sends a message to the public that we appear to discriminate against women. Even if you don’t believe that seperate buses are discriminatory, and I concede that in some situations they might not be, they send a message to the less informed public that we do discriminate. This is an awful message. Not only does it affect our interactions with our non-Jewish friends and neighbors but I believe that the message of segregated buses to the public reflects back upon us and affirms to us that we are in fact discriminating. In other words, what others think of us can affect how we feel about our own actions.

But I think the more important message is the message we give ourselves when we institute (or tolerate) separate buses. The message is that people are so highly sexualized that a casual encounter with any woman is enough to wreak havoc on a man’s soul. This is not a new trend, but no less disturbing. Charedi periodicals don’t show pictures of women. Even modestly dressed women. Even saintly women. None. (Let’s not forget that Hillary! was photoshopped out of a historic photo by a Charedi publication.) Little girls are not portrayed either. In fact, I’ve seen periodicals that had the faces of female INFANTS blurred out. That is sick.

This is a real problem. First of all, it legitimizes thinking sexually about every female in the world. It’s as if there is no choice. Women are purely sexual and we are helpless to our base desires. It says that it is impossible for men and women to interact normally.

It also tells our community that women are required to be out of the public eye no matter what. They are the unseen and unheard part of our community. I believe we lose a strong voice in our community if women are marginalized or at the least, made to think that that they suffer an incurable disease of attractiveness. We should focus our attention and efforts into learning how to function as normal, healthy, well-adjusted people in a society of men and women. Fighting this hard for separate buses indicates a horrible state of missed priorities.

Hopefully, the buses will reintegrate and holy Jews will learn how to be holy in the real world.

The Future of Women in Orthodox Judaism

Suggestion: Read “Judaism as a First Language” (right now)

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:07:20 +0000

On Cross-Currents, Rabbi Adlerstein recommends a recent article written by Dr. Moshe Koppel. Seeing as Rabbi Adlerstein rarely makes recommendations, I decided to see what the fuss was about.

The article is a 36 page masterpiece. Honestly, I think it is the best article I have ever read and I read a lot of articles, especially on Judaism.

Dr. Koppel proposes an elegant theory of how Judaism changes, Jewish law evolves and how that relates to many of our social issues today. He touches on insularity, the one-upmanship of piling stringencies upon stringencies, the necessity of belief and many other topics in this far ranging article.

I found myself agreeing with most of Dr. Koppel’s arguments and assertions. He builds a grand edifice from which the article could have made many different points. I found the final point that Dr. Koppel actually made in the article less compelling than the edifice from which the point was made. But I think there are several issues that I do find compelling that can be analyzed effectively using the tools provided in the article.

Here are three very poignant items from the article that I think demonstrate the breadth and beauty of the article.

On the various versions of core beliefs that have developed over time for different segments of orthodox Judaism:

While for some, it may be enough to believe that Judaism has evolved helter-skelter from some special origins in the murky past, others might need to feel certain that every detail of Judaism such as it is today can be traced directly to an original revelation in a specific place at a specific time. While for some, it may be enough that the process is limping forward in some vaguely understood, positive direction, others might need the ultimate destination of the process to be specified in terms of concrete political events and/or miraculous interventions, and signs of the imminence and inevitability of such events to be already discernible. While for some the satisfaction of leading a life bound to Torah is its own reward, others might need to be assured that the righteous reap rewards and the wicked suffer punishments in the most prosaic of ways, preferably instantly and in plain sight.

On acts that demonstrate that a person is associating with orthodox Judaism:

The effectiveness of signals can, however, vary with time and circumstance. In the world of American Orthodox Judaism, the refusal to eat non-kosher meat or Hostess Twinkies was once regarded as sufficiently onerous, due to the dearth of alternatives, that it could serve as an effective signal. But then the easy availability of kosher meat and snacks rendered such signals ineffective, because they were insufficiently costly. As a result, the old signals were replaced by new ones that were onerous enough to serve as signals. Kosher was replaced by glatt kosher, which was replaced by hasidishe shechita, yashon, hydroponic vegetables, and so on up the ladder of costliness and strictness. The easier each of these becomes to obtain, the less useful it is.

On the increased emphasis on the infallibility of the sages and demonization of the non-observant:

The need for the faithful to signal loyalty to ever-narrower splinter groups has led to increas- ing emphasis on precisely those aspects of tradition that are obscure and unnatural, while the lack of opportunity for constructive sacrifice has given rise to socially costly signaling. Like- wise, the need for the faithful to affirm an articulated narrative has become much greater, just as the specificity of the narrative has become more pronounced. Affirming the belief in the genius of the sages, the powers of the righteous, and the inevitable downfall of the wicked has become a litmus test of loyalty. Increasing monasticism and obscurantism have led to in- creasing defection. Each of these reactions has been triggered and exacerbated by the others and together they have constituted a vicious cycle, driving the community further and fur- ther away from a good equilibrium.

These examples are a mere taste of the amazing insight prevalent in the article.

I selected these sections as they support many of the ideas that I have written about on this blog. Much of our current “system” – if we can even call it that, is a result of social choices, consequences and needs. They are not specicically spiritual or halachic in nature. They evolved parallel to halacha but from a human perspective.

This does not mean that they are insignificant or that they are wrong. But it does mean that they need to be treated differently than halacha.

I think Dr. Koppel’s theory can be applied wonderfully to women rabbis and other contemporary issues facing orthodox Judaism today. In fact, I thought that is where he was going with the first 30 pages. Then he took a turn into an issue that I am as concerned with. But as I said above, the edifice is a platform for explaining and understanding many issues.

I hope you will take the time to read the article in its entirety and consider its message. It is long, but absolutely worthwhile.

Find it on Azure’s website here: Judaism as a First Language

Link: Cross-Currents

‘Tis the Season to Be Sparring

rabbifink — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:24:46 +0000

It’s that time of year again. That time of year when everyone is supposed to be preparing for their respective holidays full of good cheer and spirits. What ends up happening is people tripping over themselves to be insulted or to make statements about their beliefs.

First, a bit of history. It might be that a lot of the grumbling comes from not understanding what this time of year really means for various people of various religions and faiths.

People have been celebrating holidays around the winter solstice for eons.

The Talmud makes the claim that Adam initiated the first winter solstice celebration. Having been created in the fall (Tishrei) and having sinned almost immediately upon his creation, Adam believed that he was being punished with less and less daylight. The day after the solstice he realized that such was the way of the world and the daylight period would be getting longer and longer. The next year he celebrated the 8 days preceding the solstice and the 8 days following the solstice as holidays. (BT Avodah Zara 8a). The Mishna which is being discussed in that Talmudic statement notes that there were several pagan holidays that were celebrated around the winter solstice during the Mishnaic era (circa 70-200 CE).

Clearly, there are very old sources that all orthodox Jews deem reliable indicating that this time of year was marked by celebrations. These celebrations predate Christmas and in the instance of Adam, predate Chanukah as well. Further, if the pagan celebrations noted in the Mishna were a few centuries old at the time, those holidays predate Chanukah as well. This is all according traditional, ancient Jewish sources.

Although Christmas celebrates the birth of the Christian religion, it was not celebrated widely for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Slowly, through the middle ages the holiday gained prominence. About 300 years ago the holiday was already very popular with many Christians but some of the factions breaking off from mainstream Christianity at the time deemed it a pagan holiday and banned its celebration. The Puritans, famous for their establishing of colonies on American soil fined anyone who dared celebrate this holiday. The holiday is not found in scripture so it was presumed by them to have been borrowed from pagans and was impure.

Sometime in the 19th century Christmas became a universally accepted Christian holiday. The Christmas Tree was incorporated into the celebration as well. Later, in the 20th century, the imagery of Santa Claus, his elves, toy soldiers, gingerbread cookies and other familiar Christmas symbols made their way into the lore.

The holiday surged in popularity and then in the 21st century, non-Christians began to feel barraged by the overt religious overtones of the celebrations taking place on “neutral ground”. The ACLU, atheist groups and others began asking, sometimes demanding, that Christmas not be celebrated in public places.

Many Christmas celebrators took offense to this. Plenty of arguments have been invoked trying to establish a reason that Christmas celebrations should be allowed in public schools, municipal parks, government facilities, retail stores and pretty much anywhere and everywhere else. Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly have been going on about this for years and Rick Perry spurned an Internet meme with his opinion.

Rabbi Adlerstein on Patheos and the LA Times have reported on the Santa Monica war over Christmas. For years, an elaborate Nativity scene decked the halls of a Santa Monica park. There are 21 spots for holiday displays. A number of groups entered a lottery to determine who would get the spots. Atheist groups won 14 of the spots, Jewish groups got three and the rest went to the Nativity.

The atheists are being pretty mean spirited about the whole thing. They are using this as a platform to poke fun and mock religious people. That’s not very nice. But I wonder how they would have responded if the displays had not been religious, i.e. The Nativity, and instead were the cultural symbols of Santa, peppermint candy and reindeer. Many of the Christmas displays are not signs of religion per se, rather a new-age version of a Christian holiday with winter symbolism that is not inherently religious.

Although, I don’t agree with Rabbi Adlerstein and many other religious Jews as well as Christians who want more Christmas displays. Last week I was at Disneyland with my family. The daily parade was holiday themed. Our younger son really, really wanted to see many of his favorite Disney characters who were not out and about during the day. We figured we would see them during the parade so even though we were not interested in the Christmasness of the parade we stayed to watch. He was thrilled and in that respect it was the right choice.

I watched the parade carefully. There was not one ounce of religion in the parade. Nothing that was particularly Christian or related to Jesus. There were reindeer, there were red hats, Santa and the Mrs. paraded on by, scenes from the Nutcracker, and other holiday stories were represented and there was a tree. But literally nothing in the parade was religious. Yet, we were all very uncomfortable. The symbols of Christmas have become part and parcel of the religious holiday despite not really being intrinsically related to the religious holiday. In other words, even though the parade was not religious, it offended our Jewish sensitivities. This was not our holiday. We were guests. It was uncomfortable.

Disney can do as it sees fit. But as a consumer I was disappointed. What is usually a highlight of the day was uncomfortable for everyone over the age of 3 because they chose to integrate a Christian holiday into a celebration of fun, magic and fantasy. It is unfortunate. And I can completely relate to the atheists who are offended by similar displays of holiday spirit and cheer even when stripped of their specifically religious elements.

That doesn’t justify their over the top protest. Not at all. But I do believe that public religious and symbolic displays that are Christmas and Christian-centric are not inclusive and do not need to be tolerated anywhere and everywhere by the non-Christian public.

Links: Patheos, LA Times

iTalmud – iPad Edition | App Review

rabbifink — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:15:26 +0000

Way back in 2009, I did a review of iTalmud English for the iPhone. See: iTalmud English Edition: Review

A few months ago we got an iPad and I could not wait to try iTalmud – iPad Edition. Torah learning is much easier on a bigger screen and the navigation through an iPad app is less crowded than on an iPhone. I’ve been testing the iTalmud – iPad Edition and it with recent updates and the bigger screen the iPad app is one of the best apps I have used on the iPad. Period.

I figured to give you all a real taste of what using iTalmud – iPad Edition is like I would give you a walkthrough with photos.

Before we begin, I will just say that if you have an iPad and have any interest in studying Talmud, this is the absolutely best way to do it. The Torah is timeless and when technology can be leveraged to make the experience more accessible, exciting and convenient, it speaks to the eternal nature of the Torah and its people. When you think about it, it can be quite inspiring.

Here we go:

I always begin studying a page of the Talmud with the traditional page view. iTalmud provides clear PDFs of every folio of the Talmud. It is a straight PDF with no iOS magic. Functional and perhaps enough to justify spending $40. Imagine having the entire Talmud accessible on an iPad!

To change pages, one taps the book icon on the top of the page and using the iOS selection wheel can turn to any Tractate and any page in that Tractate in an instant. It takes about 2 seconds to download each PDF over wifi. It does not feel like you are “waiting” when you switch pages. Here I have switched from Shabbos to Brachos in an instant. In real life that would mean going to a bookshelf and replacing one overly large tome with another. Amazing.

If you want to be able to read folio pages when offline you can download PDFs of every Daf View page and save them for later in the Download Manager. There is no charge to keep these on your iPad. Additionally, the app provides excellent audio classes for each page. These can also be downloaded and saved for later.

Let’s move on. Daf View is nice, but the other stuff is where we experience the real magic of iTalmud. I use landscape view for viewing the PDFs. It just seems more natural. But for the other modes I mostly use portrait view. (We will stick with landscape for now.) Switching modes is simple. Just tap the page icon on he bottom left. A menu pops up and you can select how you would like iTalmud to display text. Until now we have been using Daf View.

Now I’ve selected “Hebrew Text” and “Rashi”. As you can see, this view is just text without the traditional Daf format. But I have also selected Rashi and the commentary is displayed split-screen style on the left. The two columns are independent and can be scrolled on their own. So if Rashi is lower down on the page you can scroll the left side down but leave the right side where it is. This is great.

We also can select Tosfos and Tosfos will be displayed instead of Rashi. Everything else remains the same.

Another option is to have the English translation displayed. This translation is the Soncino translation with the Footnotes. If you tap a footnote and popup displays the text of the footnote.

I’ve switched the view to portrait. In this view, the secondary text, in this case Rashi, gets moved to the bottom of the screen. I have also tapped on the Daf Yomi shiurim menu. Here, we can see a list of local Daf Yomi classes and their locations. Languages are included so that you can find the class that best meets your needs. You can also enter an address and find class near that address. Unfortunately, this feature did not work for me. The keyboard kept disappearing. I hope this is fixed in a future update.

Sometimes you want to go directly to a specific page. You can easily navigate to any page using the browse and search menu. The English Keyword search is also great. As I have beards on my mind (The Shave Heard ‘Round the World) I typed “beard” into the search and the results displayed everywhere the word beard occurs in the Talmud. This is a really super tool. Tapping a result sends you to that page. This is great, but could be better. The place on the page that the word occurs is not highlighted anywhere. This would not be so bad if there were a “search this page” option but iTalmud does not have that feature yet.

One of the coolest things in the iTalmud app is a $5 add-on. I bought it because it was useful to me and I think it is a great feature. To bring up the extras pop-up just tap on the Extras menu icon.

With Biblical References” add-on you can tap any verse from Scripture that is quoted in the Talmud and explore that verse. So just click buy and then it is automatically built into the app.

For example, I tapped a verse on Brachos 2a. Tapping the verse brings up a menu where you can choose which commentary should be displayed with the text of the verse from the Torah. I chose English. The verse is automatically highlighted and the commentary is inline.

I tried to select Rashi, but it was not working. That’s another kink that needs to be worked out. But the others work. Here is the Ramban on that verse.

And here is Ibn Ezra. It could not be simpler.

I also want to show you a full-screen view that removes the menus and just shows the text on the screen. This is the ideal method for studying. No distractions and it uses the maximum of the real estate. It would even better if iTalmud could do Airplay and be displayed on an external display. Maybe next version…

So there you have it. That’s how I use iTalmud English for iPad. I am sure many of you would use it differently. That’s part of the beauty of the app. It can be used your way.

I have one more suggestion for a future release (my father actually suggested it to me). It would be great if illustrations and models could be provided as well. The Talmud can be so well illuminated by diagrams and graphics. Some sections require illustrations. I hope a future release could provide pop-up graphics for these sections of the Talmud.

Other than that, search on the page and a couple of bugs iTalmud is one of the most complete iPad apps I have had the pleasure of using. I highly recommend the app and even more than the app, I recommend studying Talmud.

Purchase the app here: iTalmud – iPad Edition. Check out Crowded Road’s other apps and services on their website.

Disclaimer: Promotional consideration was provided by Crowded Road for the review of their iTalmud English for iPad app. I was given the app free of charge.

The Shave Heard ‘Round the World

rabbifink — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:50:34 +0000

This morning, Matisyahu shaved his beard.

Matisyahu, the self-proclaimed chasidic reggae pop-star, has always identified as an orthodox, chasidic Jew since his rise to stardom almost a decade ago. His signature look was that of a chasidic man. He had an untrimmed beard, long side locks and wore the chasidic garb. All of this while singing songs that made it on the pop charts.

Matisyahu explained his sudden departure from religiously inspired hirsute facial hair maintenance:

No more Chassidic reggae superstar.

Sorry folks, all you get is me…no alias. When I started becoming religious 10 years ago it was a very natural and organic process. It was my choice. My journey to discover my roots and explore Jewish spirituality–not through books but through real life. At a certain point I felt the need to submit to a higher level of religiosity…to move away from my intuition and to accept an ultimate truth. I felt that in order to become a good person I needed rules–lots of them–or else I would somehow fall apart. I am reclaiming myself. Trusting my goodness and my divine mission.

Get ready for an amazing year filled with music of rebirth. And for those concerned with my naked face, don’t worry…you haven’t seen the last of my facial hair. – Matisyahu

Many people interpreted this as a departure from orthodox Judaism. They felt that this meant that Matisyahu was reverting to his pre-orthodox Jewish lifestyle and would no longer identify as an orthodox Jew. Heeb Magazine made this point in the most cynical way possible.

After an Internet firestorm, Matisyahu clarified his newfound religious freedom with a more careful statement:

For all of those who are being awesome, you are awesome. For all those who are confused: today I went to the Mikva and Shul just like yesterday.

So, it seems that all the bellyaching and nervous twitching over losing the one and only orthodox Jewish pop star and the first since my friend Evan from Evan and Jaron paved the way for Matisyahu, was premature and overly judgmental.

This leads me to two less than obvious thoughts. (I’ll save the obvious thoughts for the obvobloggers. You know who you are.)

First, Matisyahu must think that non-chasidic orthodox Judaism (NCOJ) has less rules than chasidic orthodox Judaism (COJ). This is not necessarily the truth. What is true is that COJ has more rules about appearance and external practices than NCOJ. Further, NCOJ is adopting more and more of the COJ appearances and rules on appearance.

By and large, I think this is a fair distinction. COJ glamorizes a certain mode of dress and appearance as holy. NCOJ also glamorizes a certain mode of dress and appearance as holy but it is less distinctive and less sharply enforced. So I hope Matisyahu is not too disappointed with NCOJ when it comes to appearances. That is, unless he will be self-identifying as Modern Orthodox or a Yekke. Those two groups are the least concerned with external appearances within the orthodox Jewish spectrum.

Second, the beard. To some, especially those in the COJ community, the beard is holy. It has religious significance. It is not to be touched by human hand, scissor, shaver, razor or garden shears. This idea is based on mystical teachings and kabbalah. This religiously inspired love for man-hair contributed to the shocking, but brief image of a religiously shattered Matisyahu. One blogger announced that he was “off the derech” because he had shaved.

When Matisyahu announced he had shaved, I was actually proud of him. To me, it meant that he was thinking critically about his Judaism and felt a beard was not necessary or integral to his love and service of God. I agree.

Beards in orthodox Judaism are a funny thing. They mean a lot to some people. But really they mean nothing at all. A beard does not make someone holy. A holy person does not need a beard to be complete. Let’s not forget that a beard is simply just that, a beard. The Torah prohibits destroying one’s facial hair. This law is similar to the law prohibiting cutting one’s self or getting a tattoo. Using a scissor or similar mechanism to trim or shave one’s beard is not a violation of law or the spirit of the law.

The emphasis placed on things of lesser importance is common in all forms of orthodox Judaism. It can be a harmful force if it causes us to lose sight of what truly is important. If Matisyahu can show non-Jews that being an orthodox Jew is a beautiful life let us hope he can also show orthodox Jews that even a beardless man can live a beautiful life as well.

Links: Matisyahu’s Blog, Heeb

On Invented People

rabbifink — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:50:05 +0000

GOP Candidate and Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich has made headlines with his recent claim that the Palestinians are an Invented People. The responses from across the idealogical and political spectrum have been as wild and varied as to be expected.

On one extreme, representatives of the Palestinians fired back at Gingrich. In a statement, they called Gingrich racist and said that his was the worst kind of insult that would only help the cycle of violence. On the other extreme are those nodding their heads in agreement at the prospect of a President who agrees with their perspective on the Palestinians.

Incredibly, the fact-checkers have confirmed and debunked Gingrich’s claim. There is evidence that the Palestinians existed as a small subgroup in the land that is currently Israel. However, there is little evidence that they had any sense of national pride or unity as a group before the State of Israel was established.

What strikes me is how silly this whole thing is. Gingrich’s comment could be equally said about a myriad of nations and peoples. It could really be said about anybody! What qualifies a nation as a “non-invented” people? How long do those people need to be where they are to be considered legitimate?

Is the United States of America not invented? Is the United Kingdom not Invented? Is Mexico not invented? Even historically ethnic countries such as Japan or Sweden are practically speaking “invented”. They lived in close proximity for a long time and eventually created a sense of national pride and unity. But they were not magically granted the land in which they live by some objective method of determining land division. Clearly land is not given only to nations who are not invented.

Further, let’s assume for a second that Gingrich is correct. The Palestinians are invented and invented people don’t get land. Now what? What are you going to do about it? Nuke the West Bank? Manufacture a tsunami and drown Gaza? There are millions of these so-called invented people. What now? Point being, invented or not, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. By simply saying they are invented does nothing to resolve that issue. In fact, it probably has the opposite effect. It entrenches both sides and polarizes the parties.

And what about Gingrich himself? He is a Catholic. Is that an invented religion? If it is not, well that means that all other religions are invented. So are they all not granted the right to exist simply because they are invented? Everything is invented. Mazel tov.

Which brings us full circle. Gingrich said that Palestinians are an invented people simply to anger some people and excite others. It was a political statement that carries less meaning than most political statements. It is the kind of broad brushed, meaningless statement for which politics is famous.

I think the voting public would prefer to hear about solutions to a decades long conflict instead of whimsical platitudes. I wonder if Gingrich has any ideas for the conflict or if he can’t be bothered to deal with invented people.

Links: Forward, Israel Matzav

Jews in the News: YU’s Conundrum

rabbifink — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:29:34 +0000

Several online news publications reported on the YU Beacon controversy from this past week. The Beacon is a student newspaper at Yeshiva University. It is a student voice for Yeshiva College and Stern College.

The controversy arose from a particular article that was authored anonymously. I will not get into the details of the content of the article. Generally, it was about a young woman studying at Stern who lapsed in her observance in a hotel room with a fellow observant Jewish male. The article’s entire point was that while it may have been exhilarating, it was shameful and she was full of regret.

An objective reading of the article would lead to several conclusions.

1) There is a tension in the YU community regarding intimacy before marriage.
2) There are some people who breach the barriers of halacha and are intimate before marriage.
3) The culture of YU does not “accept” this as normative behavior and it is considered shameful.

I don’t find any of these conclusions to be super offensive. I don’t think they place Jews in a poor light. I don’t think they place Modern Orthodox Jews in particular in a bad light either.

What happened next complicated things.

Apparently, MANY students complained that this article was offensive. It was pulled temporarily. After a meeting between the student council, The Beacon editors and some YU administrators, the article was reposted with a disclaimer and The Beacon is now independent of YU.

The next level of analysis that always follows instances such as these is – Was this a kiddush Hashem or a Chillul Hashem?

The answer is both. And neither. Every part of the story has nuances that can be interpreted as positive and negative. Which means, that like most things controversial, it cannot be decided by one metric. I don’t use the words Kiddush and Chillul Hashem willy nilly, instead I will just use the words positive and negative. What follows is my personal analysis.

DISCLAIMERs: I am not a YU alum. I have never even been to the Yeshiva part of the University. I have been the High School twice and to the Seforim sale once. Also, I have written for The Beacon.

The article was titillating. It was in a YU publication. I think that may have been negative. A school newspaper should reflect the student body. Much of the student body does not want erotica in their newspaper. The article could have been interpreted as erotica.

But the message was positive. I think that is clear. The message is that we all struggle. We all feel guilty when we fail. But most of all, we all try to pick ourselves up and stay true to the values in our community based on Torah.

Taking down the article in response to outrage was also positive. A student newspaper should reflect the mores and mentality of the student body. When it fails to do so, it should reconsider publishing the offending material. In this case, the outrage was so severe that it warranted removal.

Perhaps it would have been more prudent, mature and wise not get so worked up over the article. But college students can be very headstrong. Their minds were made. I think the outrage was a negative.

But the end game was completely dissatisfying. The Beacon dug in its heels standing up for some moral principle and refused to back down in the face of bullies. The student council did not back down either. They forced the Beacon’s hand. Both sides were stubborn and both sides reflected negatively.

Where is the publicity over this? On which point is the media focusing? That is the key question. If it is simply noting the stubbornness of two student organizations then that is clearly a negative portrayal. But if the media’s focus is on the more mature and positive elements of this story, I think we can say that we are neutral at worst and positive at best. In that case, perhaps there was a Kiddush Hashem here. Perhaps.

As for me, I wouldn’t have published the article. I also would not have complained if the article were published.

A note on censorship and freedom of the press: In an environment that mixes secular and religious values as YU claims to do, sometimes one of those value systems must trump the other. If the religious value system says that publication is not wise, then you can can cry freedom of the press and marketplace of ideas as much as you want, but in the end, sometimes religion wins out. Sometimes, freedom of speech loses to restrictions of religion. I agree that a conversation about the content of the article is a good thing. I don’t know that the manner in which this article was executed was perfect nor do I think the negativity towards it was perfect either.

I do hope that the article will serve its purpose. I hope that it will promote discussion and discourse on this very important issue and that after all is said and done we will all emerge wiser, more devout and committed to our religious values.

Links: WSJ, Fox News

Should a Death Row Inmate Be Able to Choose to Die?

rabbifink — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:33:32 +0000

This is something from a couple weeks ago. I know that there is a cardinal sin of blogging that prohibits one from writing about an article that is more than a few hours old, but timing is not a material issue to this article.

I refer to an LA Times article about a man who is on death row in San Quentin Prison in California. The man’s name is Jerry Stanley. By all accounts including his own, Stanley is guilty of several murders including the murders of a few of his wives. He admits to the crimes. He knows what he did was wrong. He knows he is going to be killed for his acts. He just doesn’t want to wait.

Stanley has asked for his execution. He doesn’t care how they do it. He doesn’t care if they want to test new drugs or methods of execution on him. All Stanley wants is to be killed soon.

Lawyers are assigned to all death row inmates and their job is to file appeals on behalf of their clients. Stanley has asked that no appeals be filed on his behalf.

It’s to the point that if he is not given an execution date, Stanley will stop taking his medications and will not eat until that kills him.

This has triggered a debate among supporters and opponents of the death penalty. In fact, my good old pal Dudley Sharp even got a quote in the LA Times article. (Dudley spent considerable time on this blog and DovBear telling us how not administering the death penalty is immoral. See: A Moral Argument Against The Death Penalty and The Death Penalty).

I thought about what the analogous case would be in Jewish Law. If a man is sentenced to death (very, very rare) and he committed suicide before the execution was administered or he was killed by a third party and not the executioners, I believe that the man would liable in Heaven for suicide and the killer would be liable for murder. (I believe. I have not done extensive research, but nothing that I can recall tells me this is untrue.)

Thus, there is a sanctity of life that cannot be tinkered with by non-court appointed officials. There is an “appeals” procedure in Jewish law whereby one who has information about the man on death row they can do so before the man is executed. I don’t think the person of death row can waive that time in between the sentencing and the execution (very short time period).

It seems that the only legal way for a human being to be killed is through the proper procedures and by the hands of the court. That is the only way. If so, I think it would be the same for Mr. Stanley. His life has sanctity whether he cares about it or not. We, the people, cannot take his life until all procedures are satisfied. Personally, I don’t think a secular, flawed justice system can ever satisfy those procedures, but that is a completely different topic.

In my view, Mr. Stanley cannot force the state to execute him. It is not his choice to make. It is decision that rests upon those who are entrusted with task of meting out justice. An unenviable task. But it is their job. It is not Mr. Stanley’s job.

Why would we place someone’s life in the hands of a murderer? Clearly, he does not have the respect for life that is necessary when making these kinds of decisions.

Postscript: I think this case sharpens an irony with regard to the death penalty. I am arguing that Stanley cannot be killed based on his own preferences because of the sanctity of life. Conservatives who would not mind killing this guy based on his personal decisions fight vociferously against DNRs and abortion based on the same argument.

Link: LA Times

The Day After Thanksgiving: Some Thoughts on Yesterday’s Controversies

rabbifink — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:55:02 +0000

You might find it odd that the day after Thanksgiving I am writing about Thanksgiving. The truth is that I am not really writing about Thanksgiving rather some of the nutty things that happened this year on Thanksgiving.

Of course I am talking about some the controversies that arose regarding the celebrations of Thanksgiving that don’t fit the mold of the religious Christian Thanksgiving. Two incidents in particular created some buzz but I am sure there were others as well.

First we turn to the Butterball Turkey situation. One blogger called upon her readers to boycott Butterball because they dared to have their Turkeys Halal certified. This means that it is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law. It is very similar to Shechita, the method of slaughter required by Jewish law. According to Ms. Geller:

“Halal turkey, slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic law, is just the opposite of what Thanksgiving represents: freedom and inclusiveness, neither of which are allowed for under that same Islamic law.”

First of all, Thanksgiving DOES NOT represent freedom or inclusiveness. It never has and never will. I can provide Ms. Geller with a hint as to what the holiday represents – it’s in the name. Oh yes. It’s thanks and appreciation.

More importantly, any religious ceremony is by default not free or inclusive. Jewish law, Canon law, Islamic law, any religious law that makes specific requirements is not (on the surface) “freedom”. They are restrictions. Moreover, religious law is never going to be inclusive. It calls for rituals that make the performer of the ritual a religious person and by default the one who does not perform the ritual irreligious. This can create a barrier between the religious and irreligious. All religions suffer this potential flaw.

Just look at my Tim Tebow post from a couple days ago: Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God. Not everyone is so comfortable with Tebow’s religious proclivities. But have a look at the comment left by the Christian fellow in the comments. Do you think his religion is “inclusive” of me? (Or Ms. Geller?) Is that the sound of freedom? In Ms. Geller’s world that makes Tebow the commenter people who should not allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving. They are not inclusive enough.

Ms. Geller calls Halal slaughtering a form of torture. This is obviously offensive to all kosher eating people as well.

But the real point is that Ms. Geller is being as two-faced as one can be. By denying an entire group the right to have a Thanksgiving dinner, Ms. Geller is being as freedom hating and non-inclusive as one can be. But that was obvious.

Finally, I imagine that the reason Butterball markets Halal turkeys is because it is good business. To me, that’s just the free market that Ms. Geller loves so much.

Now we turn to controversy number two. The President gave the traditional Presidential Thanksgiving address and neglected to mention God in his words. The president dedicated this year’s holiday celebration to the troops fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also thanked the volunteers in soup kitchens across America. So what was the problem? He did not mention God. This is a terrible sin that violates the ancient and holy laws of Thanksgiving.

Never mind that in the Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation he did mention God.

The omission set off a firestorm of vitriol toward the president.

A particularly bombastic twitterer called Obama a “militant atheist” for not mentioning God in the address. As irresponsible and insane of a statement it is to “out” someone as an atheist when they clearly are not an atheist, the tweet ignores the Proclamation and Obama’s 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses where he did mention God.

How is this reconciled? Was he a believer before but now he is all of the sudden a “militant atheist”? Or maybe he was a “militant atheist” all along but he has finally decided to own up to his true non-beliefs?

As far as militant atheists go, Obama would hardly be very successful. He goes to Church, says the appropriate God Bless Americas and to my knowledge has never engaged a believer in debate trying to convince the believer that belief in God is wrong.

Obama is not an atheist and certainly is not a militant atheist. This the kind of message that someone tweets to pander to right wing conservative Christians and bait left wing liberal non-Christians. It’s a call for attention. Well, he got it. Congratulations. But at what cost? Credibility. You can only say so many crazy things before everything you say is considered crazy.

All the silliness aside, I think that Thanksgiving is one day that should be enjoyed and celebrated by people of all faiths and people of no faith. That Ms. Geller and the bombastic twitterer feel that Thanksgiving must be celebrated in one way and in no other is a fallacy. Thanksgiving is the perfect time to push aside our differences and be thankful for the wonderful things in our lives to whomever or whatever we attribute them to.

The irony is that both Ms. Geller and the bombastic twitterer are Jewish and that they would prefer a Christian version of the holiday than a non-denominational celebration tells me that they have sold out the ever important freedom of religion and inclusiveness of America’s Constitution for the sake making friends in religious right.

Thanksgiving is for everyone. Let’s keep it that way.

Links: American Thinker, Twitter

Tim Tebow’s Relationship With His God

rabbifink — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:55:15 +0000

There is nothing quite like Tim Tebow.

He is one of the most decorated NCAA Football players of all time. He worked for years as a Missionary spreading the Gospel in Southeast Asia. He is arguably the worst passing quarterback in the NFL. He is by far the most talked about sports personality.

Quite a combination. Much of the talk of Tim Tebow relates to his very obvious religious beliefs. I say they are obvious because Tebow kneels in prayer during the game. He points to the sky all the time. He invokes the name of his God every time he has a chance to do so. Tebow’s antics inspired an entire internet meme called #Tebowing. People would kneel as if in prayer at the most awkward times and places and snap a picture. This is aside from the very clever #occupytebow movement which is not relevant to this blog post.

The point is that Tebow takes his religion very seriously. Whenever athletes thank God and praise God for their accomplishments it can be irksome to everyone. Religious people of the same religion, religious people of other religions and atheists can all find ways to be offended.

Does God really want the Home team to beat the Away team? Does God really give special powers to some teams and not to other teams? Does a player’s religious conviction really have an impact on a game?

I think the answer to all those questions is no. See: Whose Fault is a Dropped Game-Wininng Touchdown? for my feelings on this one.

In fact, please read that post because you’ll see that I actually agree with Tim Tebow on this issue.

Tebow was asked about invoking God as part of his athletic accomplishments and he didn’t take the bait. He answered that he doesn’t give God the credit or the blame. He is merely using his platform as a way of teaching people about his religion. He emphatically denied that his religion gives him an edge or that he can play better because of God. He focused on the opportunity to use his fame and success to glorify the name of his God.

He also mentions that football does not define him. He is defined by his morality and good acts. He is defined by his character. So his religion is not a cause. It is merely a basis for his life. It is not part of his game on the field.

I think that is a great answer. Great job by Tebow.

What is interesting to me is that Tebow invokes the name of his God, Jesus, and that is somewhat acceptable within society. Imagine a Muslim player praising Allah or a Jewish person praising God (not Jesus). I don’t think they would be as accepted.

Christian displays of religious fervor are far more tolerated than that of any other religion. It can make the rest of us feel uncomfortable. Tebow is doing it in a way that minimizes the discomfort for others but even his way has rankled many people. It would be wise for people to limit religion to religious activities and not pepper it throughout their public lives.

Watch Tebow’s interview. The religious stuff is near the end:

There is No Tent

rabbifink — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:53:45 +0000

Originally Posted on YUBeacon.com: There is No Tent

Lately it seems like everyone is trying to define Modern Orthodoxy. The purpose of these attempts revolves around one specific institution and its graduates, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT).

Four articles (1, 2, 3, 4) on a prominent Centrist-Orthodox blog tried to tackle the YCT issue (see links below). Three of the articles called on Modern Orthodoxy to disaffiliate with YCT. One article explained that YCT deserved to be included in the Modern Orthodox tent. Much ink has been spilled over YCT and the more that is written, the more things stay the same. Platitudes and proclamations have done nothing to stop YCT. Indeed, they serve a need within Orthodox Jewish community. They tend to those who would like to be Orthodox but find some its social constraints too limiting. There is a place for YCT. However, there is no place for the articles calling for its demise.

The articles assume there is an umbrella under which some institutions, rabbis or individuals are permitted to take shelter. The outsiders are subject to excommunication and ridicule. It is a tent where like-minded people share common goals, appreciation and self-congratulation. In their opinion, YCT belongs outside the tent.

A second assumption in the articles is that Modern Orthodox Judaism needs a definition. It must be codified lest it suffer some horrible end. Without a definition it is doomed to be over-inclusive and possibly even under-inclusive. There is talk that YCT is “counterfeiting Torah” and that must be ousted from the Modern Orthodox camp.

All this talk of camps, umbrellas, tents and definitions is misplaced. Similarly, limited denominations such as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform are misplaced.

Tackling the second assumption first, it seems that Modern Orthodoxy has a complex. It needs “defining.” It is as if Modern Orthodoxy feels that it is novel form of serving God or an aberration from the classic style of Jewish life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern Orthodoxy needs to have the confidence to positively assert that Modern Orthodoxy is not the “kid brother” of big-boy Charedi Judaism. It is the Charedi world that is an aberration from almost every Jewish society in recorded history.

Jewish life for over 2500 years has been determined by fealty to God, Torah and Mitzvos all while living with one foot in the general society. Tannaim held typical jobs and conducted conversations with Greek philosophers. Similarly, Amoraim discussed religion with Roman royalty. During the period of the Geonim and Rishonim, Jews had jobs, educated Jews studied the sciences and philosophy of their day and the great Torah scholars were well versed in many disciplines including Torah. Even during the period of the Achronim, many of the most famous interpreters and codifiers of law were proficient in science, mathematics and philosophy.

Where is the societal precedent for today’s isolationism and shunning of all wisdom outside of Torah? Why does Modern Orthodoxy not proudly assume the mantle of traditional Judaism? Why does it always feel like Modern Orthodoxy needs to be explaining and defining itself?

Modern Orthodox Judaism is a straight shot from the Jewish life that was lived for thousands of years by Torah observant Jews. There is nothing for Modern Orthodox Jews to be ashamed of other than not realizing this important point. Torah observance is primary; there is no doubt about that. Wisdom found outside Torah has always been valued and there is no reason that should be any different today.

As to the first assumption, that of the tent: Judaism is the only necessary denomination. Everything else is just the narcissism of small differences.

Throughout Jewish history, Jews with varying degrees of observance and a variety of beliefs lived side by side. Sometimes they quarreled, oftentimes vociferously, but their disagreements took place in one tent. It was unwise and unfruitful to divide and self define into small groups. More significantly, there was no social benefit to doing so.

In Ashkenaz, for their non-Jewish neighbors, the Jewish people were “the other.” For the Jewish people, the non-Jewish people were “the other.” There was no need to drill down into subgroups. There was no social benefit to subgrouping.

When non-Jews ceased to be “the other,” as Ashkenazik Jews became more integrated into general society, a new “other” was created. The more integrated group branded the more isolated group as “Orthodox” and the more isolated group branded the more integrated group “Reform.” Jews were now “the other” for other Jews.

In truth, this was a tragedy. Judaism is not just a religion. It is a family. We are all united as Jews by common ancestry. We are also united as people who follow the Jewish religion. But one can be a non-religious Jew. This is not so with other religions. By calling one another “the other” we cast aspersion across the religious spectrum. Fights and disagreements ensue. Communication is halted. And this is where we start erecting self-serving tents. There should be only one tent. A tent that is large enough for our entire family, no matter how they observe. Our family should all be able to live under one tent.

This is not a pipe dream. At least three contemporary Jewish communities function in this way. These communities are the South African, Persian/Iranian and the Syrian communities. In these communities there is no segmentation based on Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox. Rather, everyone is part of a larger community and within the larger community some families are more observant than others. Yet, many different levels of observance will be found in one shul or one school

It wasn’t too long ago that this was the case in Ashkenazic communities in North America. In the 60’s and 70’s, children from non-observant homes went to school with children from very observant homes. The greater Jewish community was not strong enough to tolerate subgroups and segmentation. Our strength has become a curse. We are now very strong and we now are willing to exclude fellow Jews from our tent.

These subgroups do not serve a religious purpose. Judaism has always been about performing the mitzvot as prescribed in the Torah. It is a personal relationship between Man and Creator. There is no allegiance that must be paid to human dogmas. People are supposed to study, learn and forge their own relationship with God.

To this end, what purpose does the tent serve? Who needs a tent and tenets of the tent to tell them what to do and how to act? The Torah, its interpreters and codifiers have given us all that we need. The tent only serves one purpose: to exclude others.

It is true. Most Jews are not Orthodox. Most Jews do not celebrate Shabbat and the holidays the way that Orthodox Jews celebrate those days. Most Jews do not adhere to the strict rigors of halacha. So what? Why should those factors determine who is the tent? Who benefits by not allowing them into our tent? No one does.

The differences in observance might matter at some point. A Shabbat invitation will require that both parties are comfortable with the level of kashrut. A dating couple will need to be religiously compatible. There are a few examples, but they are only a few. It is up to the individual parties to try to find common ground. A tent is not needed to make these decisions for us.

Are we scared that some exposure to less halachically observant Jews will cause or own to run off and frolic in the fields with the less observant? Is the current edition of Orthodox Judaism so flimsy that mere interaction with others will cause it to crumble beneath the weight of enlightenment? I should hope not. If we have the truth, and I believe we do, what are we so afraid of?

As the rabbi of a shul that calls itself Orthodox but is a spiritual home to Jews (and non-Jews) of every single level of observance, I can attest that it can be done. Not only can it be done, it can be done in spectacular fashion. Our shul has something akin to a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Anyone who wishes to pray and learn in our shul is welcome. There is no “Tzitzis check.” There is no subgrouping based on observance. And it works. Sometimes there are awkward moments. But our relationships are more important than those moments of discomfort and I don’t believe any of us would trade our friendships and shul family so that we would never have to think critically on our own about how we interact with others. I believe we have a viable model. I believe that we have a preferable model. I believe our tent is big enough for every Jewish person to find spiritual shelter together. I believe that firmly grabbing hold of the Modern Orthodox, non-isolationist view, we can return to a more authentic and traditional Judaism that empowers us to embrace Jew of all textures and flavors. It will allow us to break free from the limitations of a tent and it confining walls. Following this model, there is no tent.

Conservatives Should Support the NBA Players Union

rabbifink — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:17:56 +0000

Sports fans know that the NBA is currently undergoing a labor dispute between Ownership and the players represented by their Union. The dispute has led to two drastic measures.

First, the owners “locked out” the players. This means that the owners of the teams told the players that they would not allow them to play or earn paychecks unless they negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement. They tried negotiating. No deal was struck.

Next the players decertified their union. They are now individuals negotiating and no longer a union and they are suing the owners for anti-trust violations.

There are several very interesting things to note about these negotiations that would interest non-sports fans. This post deals with one.

Normally, unions are supported by liberals and ownership is supported by conservatives. I don’t need to explain this is too much detail it is fairly self-evident.

So knee-jerk reactionists, I know one particularly bombastic fellow in particular, will define their allegiances in this dispute based on their social / political beliefs. So knee-jerk conservatives will side with the owners and liberals will side with the players.

This is a mistake.

The NBA is not like any other business for several reasons. What is relevant here is that the owners are not the same as any other group of ownership. In the NBA the owners have already imposed a team wide salary cap and maximum contracts as well as highly regulated contracts over the course of the first five years of every single player’s career.

This means that the best, most valuable players are unable to earn their actual value. Let’s take Kobe Bryant. Kobe is slated to earn $25,244,000 this year. That sounds like a lot of money and it is. But he is actually worth MORE than that. So the owners have regulated the salaries to the point that Kobe CANNOT earn market value for his services. It would be like the banking industry saying that a CFO can only make $5 million dollars a year even if he brings $35 million of revenue each year. This is not something conservatives should support.

Further, at this point in the negotiations, the players are fighting for issues regarding movement of players. Owners want the salary cap to be so draconian that a team would not be able sign players that really want to play for them. The owners want to keep players in the places where they drafter for longer. The players will have little to no say as to where they work. This is not very free market like either. Again, not something that conservatives should support.

Another factor to consider is that small market owners are unhappy that they are not making money. There are many reasons a team might not be making money. But the single biggest expense for most teams is the salaries of their players. Teams with less income cannot afford to overspend on players. Yet, this is exactly what they do. A small market team gave Rashard Lewis, a two time NBA All Star who is a typical second or third best player on a team, $22,152,000 for this coming season. That is the second highest NBA salary. It is a terrible contract. Is it any wonder that the team that made that deal is losing money. Irresponsible spending is a huge factor in the bottom line of NBA teams. Whose fault is it if that team does not make money? The players? No. It is the owner’s. There are many many bad contracts in the NBA. Dumb owners are demanding a bailout and future safety net. Regulating contracts to the degree that it is impossible for an owner to make a mistake is not Capitalism. This is not something a conservative should support.

It turns out that in these negotiations, the union is arguing for conservative economic principles and the owners are arguing for more socialist principles. Conservatives should support the players. As hard as it may be to say the words “I support a union” or “I support labor” in this instance, the union and labor are the side that is more aligned with conservative beliefs.

(I believe that liberals should also support the players but that is not the point of this post.)

Background: The offer that should have been accepted (ESPN Truehoop)

It’s Not as Easy as It Seems

rabbifink — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:58:27 +0000

The moral outrage over the Penn State scandal is reaching epic proportions. In the NY Times, David Brooks raises a salient point and it got me thinking. Brooks says that humans have a bad track record of speaking up when something needs to be said.

Everyone is horrified by the heinous acts alleged to have been committed by Jerry Sandusky. But there is another level of disdain for Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary and the police that investigated the accusations over the years. These people all contributed to the abuse. They either created or fostered an environment that tolerated abuse. They did not follow through on their professional responsibilities. They let the victims down.

It is easy to point the finger at these guilty parties and say they were wrong. It is also easy to say that if we were in their situation we would have acted more responsibly. Maybe many of us would have acted differently. We have no way of knowing for sure.

Similarly, we point fingers laced in guilt at the complicit parties in the Catholic Church scandal. I know there is the same sentiment among many orthodox Jews regarding abuse in the orthodox Jewish community. The finger pointers always say that they would not have covered it up. They would have done the moral thing and blown the whistle. Maybe they would have. But we we have no way of knowing for sure.

My point is that this is the third scandal with the same kind of structure. An infallible leadership, concern over reputation, self imposed regulation and policing etc and all three scandals followed the same form.

Someone finds out about the abuse and the information is locked down. Nothing is done for years.

I used to be really mad at people who know about abuse and don’t say anything. I am still mad, but less mad. It seems that this cycle is almost inevitable. The people who did the covering up are just like you and me. They probably never thought they would not blow the whistle either. But it is not as easy as it seems.

When things happen and we judge others based on what we would have done, we are being disingenuous. There is no way for us to know if we would have had the courage to act in the way we think we would have acted.

Hillel, one of the great rabbis of the Mishna says: “Don’t judge your friend until you reach his place. [And you will never reach his place.]” – Avos 2:5

The point is that we can all feel morally superior but we have no idea if we would have actually acted differently.

Our true anger should be directed at the systems that allow such a casual approach to such horrible things. The people who are in the system and don’t say anything are just part of a corrupt system. Sure, their complicity gives them a role in the system too. But I think it is very hard to buck an entire system. It is hard to swim upstream. It is hard to blow that whistle. That is why the whistle blowers are such heroes.

So in retrospect, looking at the feelings of anger and resentment I had toward the people in the institutions who did not do everything in their power to curb abuse, I feel differently now. I see a pattern that almost does not allow for whistle blowing. I am still upset that they did not do the right thing, but I can understand better how hard it is.

But this only increases my anger and disdain for the “system”. A system that is structured perfectly for predators will have predators. The system is bad, it is to blame, and must be fixed. The NCAA will look at their system, the Catholic Church has looked at their system and orthodox Judaism has also been looking at their system. But it will take courage to fix the system so that these heinous acts do not repeat themselves and force us to count on heroism.

We should not need to rely on heroes to save children from abuse. That is the most horrible thing about abuse in these communities. To protect children we are relying on heroes. We should be able to rely on the system.

Link: NY Times

Innocent or Guilty, Jerry Sandusky is a Very Strange Man

rabbifink — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:48:32 +0000

In a mind boggling decision, Jerry Sandusky ~~agreed~~ offered to be interviewed by the great Bob Costas. This was curious. But some of Sandusky’s responses were even more curious.

Costas asked all the tough questions and I recommend reading the transcript and / or watching the video.

The thing that caught my eye the most was a Sandusky response to a very provocative Costas question.

Towards the end of the interview Costas asked Sandusky:

Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?

To which Sandusky, in classic Talmudic fashion, responds with a question:

Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

At this point every single normal human being is thinking this:

DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? HOW IS YOUR IMMEDIATE ANSWER “HECK NO!”? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT?

Being the nice guy (at least on Camera) that he is, Costas offers him a second chance and answers Sandusky’s ridiculous question. So Costas says:

Yes.

Sandusky realizes he better answer the question so he replies:

Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.

WHAT?! It took him three prefatory phrases to get to the word “No”. To me, this indicates something very significant.

Like most predators, Sandusky is oblivious to the peculiarity of his behavior. He thinks it is normal. He is not phased by the fact that someone just asked him about being sexually attracted to young boys. This is not normal.

At this point it is fair to say that whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent, he is a very strange man.

If someone would ask me or almost any of you reading this blog post the question that Bob Costas asked Jerry Sandusky I am confident that 99.99% of the group would react strongly and assertively that we are not attracted to young boys. Sandusky didn’t.

I believe that this fits the pathology of sexual predators. They don’t see themselves as doing anything wrong. They see their acts as normal. Perhaps at one time it was normal. I have heard of historical societies that did not frown upon this kind of behavior. That does not make it right, it just makes it less objectionable. But in our society it is considered abuse and a crime to do the things Sandusky is alleged to have done. It is objectionable. And it is up to us to be vigilant in protected our children and those who are dependent on us from predators.

Penn State failed the victims. Society failed the victims. But it is even more disturbing to get a peek into a twisted mind and see what is so patently obvious now but was ignored far too long.

That is, Mr. Sandusky is a sick man. Sick men will do harmful things to people.

Video here:

With a slight tip of the hat to Colin Cowherd.

Links: Transcript

Modern Orthodox Mormons

rabbifink — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:01:53 +0000

A couple of weeks ago the New York Times featured a Fashion and Style article that caught my attention. I never read that section. But the headline grabbed me because it was not really about fashion or style. It was about religion and Mormons in particular.

The article talked about modern Mormons trying to fit in with their non-Mormon social circles.

I have a “thing” with Mormons.

Of all the religions in the world, I think the closest religion to Orthodox Judaism in many respects is Mormonism. I don’t mean in a theoligical sense. I mean in a practical, real world sense.

The kinds of challenges and successes that Mormons have resemble that of orthodox Jews. Both are minority religions in a predominantly “Traditional Christian” country. Both give their adherents opportunities to thrive in the modern world. But both also have a bit of a tradition of reluctance to modernity. So it is striking that both have embraced modernity in their own ways.

Brigham Young University is a Mormon college. It strikes me as being very similar to Yeshiva University or even my alma mater, Ner Israel. I wrote about that sometime a while back: The BYU Honor Code and Me

To me the article in the NY Times sounded a lot like Modern Orthodox Judaism. Young people who aspire to achieve success in the secular world who are also extremely restricted by their religion within that secular world. The restrictions are different between but they are similar as well.

For example: Clothing. Mormons are required to wear modest clothing on the outside but also a religious article of clothing on the inside. Orthodox Jews have the same. Different in the details but similar in spirit.

Another example: Social Drinking. Alcohol plays a huge social role. Parties serve alcohol, bars are frequent places of meeting and Mormons are forbidden from drinking alcohol altogether. Orthodox Jews are allowed to drink. But there are many restrictions that prevent (perhaps by design) absolute fraternization with non-Jews. Wine must be kosher. Mixed drinks must contain only kosher ingredients. Social drinking can be cumbersome.

I think these sort of parallels reflect a greater parallel between the two religions. This all leads me to one important thing to consider.

We live in a country that is predominately Christian. By and large, Christians have been wonderful friends to the Jews and particularly to Israel. But there is always the sneaking suspicion that we are still “the other”. I know I sense it. Similarly, Mormons have also been subjected to feeling like “the other”.

I am not criticizing anyone for making Jews or Mormons feel like “the other”. I am just saying that it exists and sometimes it rears its ugly head.

Rick Perry’s campaign has managed to make both Jews and Mormons feel significantly like “the other”. First Jews at his Prayer Rally and then Mormons when a member of his staff said some not-nice things about Mormons.

So Mormons, we know how you feel, in more ways than one…

Link: NY Times

I Don’t Care About 11/11/11 11:11:11 (but the New York Times did in 1911!)

rabbifink — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:53:32 +0000

I wondered aloud (on Twitter, where one does such things) if last time 11/11/11 11:11:11 came along if anybody cared about it.

It seems silly to me that numerology is so important to some people. It reminds me of the Ibn Ezra from Lech Lecha that berates Rashi for hanging an interpretation on a gematria. In his words:

“… the Torah does not speak in gematria, for anyone who desires can use gematria to interpret any name for good and for evil.”

My thoughts exactly.

Anyway, I decided to do some research and put my NY Times subscription to good use. It turns out that the paper reported on the significance of the date and time. The article also mentions 11/11/1111 but does not expect to find some recording of it because the Monks would not have been so imprecise as to record a date 11/11/1111 in that manner. They would have certainly used November 11, 1111.

The last line is the best line:

As none of us is likely to be living in the 11111, it would be well for those who delight in curious trifles to take their of enjoyment out of this method of dating today, 11-11-11.

Seeing as I take no such delight, consider me “just reporting”.

Link: NY Times (subscription only to see entire article)