Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Musings & Observations

New Koren English Talmud

rabbifink — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:57:03 +0000

I received a press release for the New English Talmud from Koren a few days ago. With all the excitement over the Asifa and the unexpected brouhaha over the role of women in chasidic Judaism, I neglected to post my initial thoughts on this edition of the Talmud.

First of all, I am a huge fan of the Talmud. I think studying Talmud is amazing. The experience of Talmud study, when done right, can be at least as inspirational and spiritually satisfying as anything else in the world. The problem is that it can be a locked book. An English translation is nice, but so much of the Talmud requires background information and illustration that the simple rendering of the words into English is not sufficient to unlock the Talmud.

Artscroll has magnificently risen to the occasion with their English Talmud. Their contribution marked a key turning point for mainstreaming Talmud study. Their translation and interpretations follow Yeshiva style conventions. The Artscroll Talmud may be the greatest contribution to Torah study since the first printing of the Tamud in the 16th century. Its commentary digest is extremely well researched and presented and the sheer magnitude of the project is awe-inspiring.

It is hard to believe, but 30 years prior to the Artscroll Talmud was conceived, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz began a similar project translating the Talmud into modern Hebrew and penning a fresh Hebrew commentary digest. His work would have been more widely used if he had maintained the canonized page format of all the previous printings of the Talmud. But he did not and his version was placed under Rabbinic ban.

The New English Talmud will provide another option for English speaking sudents of the Talmud. The translation is adapted from Rabbi Steinsaltz’s translation into modern Hebrew and the commentary is his. But in keeping with tradition, the New English Talmud stays true to the canonized pagination of the Talmud thus rectifying an unfortunate error in the previous versions.

More options is a good thing. In particular, this version has an emphasis on the aesthetic, taking layout seriously and using color illustrations. It truly looks to be a remarkable and fresh way to study the Talmud. Plus, having two big names in the English Talmud game will force both to step up their games and bring even more innovative, high quality products to the market.

Artscroll announced their iPad app a few months ago. Koren is also supplying an app. Only a few details are available at this point but I look forward to using both of them.

My shul has a set of Artscroll and I have been gifted (by a loving family member) a significant selection of the New English Talmud so I will be able to do a more complete comparison after I receive my copy. In the meantime, if you are considering an English Talmud purchase, I strongly urge you to consider the Koren version. It looks to be amazing.

(Unfortunately, the YouTube video promo for the New English Talmud is a tad on the ridiculous side. I’m not sure what they were thinking.)

Link: Koren

Dear Chaya

rabbifink — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:45:28 +0000

(If you haven’t read Chaya’s article, you’ll need to read that first. Click: XOJane)

I am very happy that you have found personal satisfaction in your religious life. I am also happy you took to the Internet to profess your love for your personal relationship with God (and apparently your husband). I honestly wish every orthodox Jewish woman was as religiously fulfilled as you are. However, sadly this is not the case.

Which leads me to the real issues I take with your effusive article.

You represented your subjective experience as the objective experience of chasidic women. Making things worse, you failed to disclose in the article many important factors that contributed to your personal experience. Indeed, you made them clear in the comments, but it was too little, too late.

You were not born into orthodox Judaism. That means that you actually chose the life you live. That’s amazing and I am so happy for you that you arrived at what I believe to be the truth on your own. But the simple fact is that people who are born into orthodox Judaism don’t choose it. This means that they are stuck. For better or for worse. Some people are thrilled to be stuck. Others, not so much. But this means that while you feel like you are free to as you please. I am sure you realize that if an orthodox woman would put on “pants and go snort coke” she would probably be asked to leave the community and be handed a quick divorce and lose custody of her children. So it is not as free as you intimate. It might feel free to you because you chose it. But it is not free.

The second thing that you did not disclose, and this is a far more egregious error, is that you are a member of the Chabad sect of chasidus. The reason this is so crucial is because Chabad is different than every single other chasidic sect. There are absolutely no social correlations between Chabad and the other sects of chasidus. None.

In the words of Hella Winston (quoted from Unchosen):

With its “mitzvah tanks”, campus Chabad houses, celebrity stuffed fundraising telethons, and outposts across the globe, Lubavitch has become almost synonymous with Hasidism. This despite the fact that in the United State it numbers less than half the size of Satmar and is hardly representative of the Hasidic community as a whole. With their mission – unique in the Hasidic world – to attract unaffiliated Jews, Lubavitchers are raised to engage (Jewish) outsiders, doing missionary work wherever Jews are found around the world. [...]

This emphasis on proselytizing has meant that a significant percentage of Lubavitchers were not born in the community but joined by choice. Often those who join [...] have led formerly secular lives, which likely included a college education or beyond. [...] Additionally, Lubavitch raises a substantial amount of money from non-Hasidic Jews [...]. All of this is strong contrast to the other Hasidic sects, which include Satmar, Ger, Viznitz, Belz, Bobov, Skver, Sponka, Pupa and Breslow, to name only a few. In these sects, almost all members are born into the community, and none engages in formal outreach, making them comparatively more insulated from , and less aware of, the ways of the outside society than their counterparts in Lubavitch.

You see, the insular chasidic sects bear no resemblance to this world you love. Their world is even more closed and more insular. So your personal experience, while wonderful, has no relevance to the world of chasidic women in the insular sects of Satmar, Ger, Vizhnitz, Square, etc. More importantly, their world is a world where women are more oppressed than in the rest of orthodox Judaism. There are rules against driving, getting an education, men and women walk on separate sides of the street in some communities, there are very strict rules about sex, many women shave their heads, girls are wed after extremely short meetings to young men they barely know, they must wear synthetic (bad looking) wigs, can’t wear latest fashions (even the modest ones), I could go on and on. The point is that in these communities, women don’t feel the great freedom and empowerment that you feel.

Ironically, by ignoring all this omitted information, you are causing a disservice to chasidic women everywhere. You make it sound like things are all honky-dory. But they are not. I am sure many chasidic women love their lot in life. But your experience has no bearing on theirs. In fact, I would bet you wouldn’t last a week in Kiryas Joel or New Square! The things you love about your Judaism are simply not present in those uber-insular communities.

But the most difficult thing about your article is that it completely ignores that plain fact that in halacha, women can easily be perceived as second class citizens. This is an incontrovertible fact. Women cannot be rabbis, cantors, judges, witnesses in Beis Din, and they aren’t counted as part of a minyan. Women’s dress codes are medieval, their stained underwear is checked by rabbis, they are discouraged from using contraception, they don’t study the most important text of orthodox Judaism – the Talmud (because they are assumed to have weaker minds), and they don’t take positions of authority. Heck the women in Crown Heights are not even allowed to vote on communal issues! I am well aware of the various apologetics and interpretations of these rules. It could be argued that women have an elevated role and do not require the encumbrances of mitzvah observance. I have used them and taught them myself. Some people buy those explanations, but many others do not. It’s great that so many orthodox Jewish women are happy with their place in orthodox Judaism, but it is completely reasonable for women inside the system and outside the system to perceive orthodox Judaism as oppressive to women.

In sum, I respect your healthy exuberance for your Chabad lifestyle. I think it’s great. Share the love. By all means. But please do not generalize and use terms like “we” and “us” to describe your personal experience. Not only is it disingenuous, it actually harms the cause of those who are trying to advocate for women’s rights and opportunities in the chasidic and otherwise orthodox Jewish women. The future of orthodox Judaism will need to make adjustments to the way we deal with women issues (see: The Future of Women in Orthodox Judaism). Pretending it is perfect as it is, sets us backwards several decades.

The Asifa is Done: I Was Fooled

rabbifink — Mon, 21 May 2012 05:22:51 +0000

Let’s make this short and sweet.

The askanim I spoke with assured me that the Asifa would not ban the Internet. I explained that there is plenty of reason for skepticism regarding the opinion of the great rabbis when it comes to Internet. After all, every single public statement on the Internet was that the Internet must be banned. Then they tried to coerce the schools to disallow any child who had Internet in the home to attend any of the yeshivas and Beis Yaakovs. So I said, forgive me for being skeptical.

I was led down a path of fantasy and imagination. I was told that the rabbis won’t be banning the Internet at this event. After all, the slogan was “We can’t live with it, we can’t live without it”! There are going to be vendors teaching people about Internet filters at the event! So I believed in this myth. I believed that the new approach was going to be different. I believed they were going to advocate responsible Internet use. I believed that the standards would be subjective. I bought a bridge.

Three out of context quotes are all you need to know about the event.

R’ Wachsman said that since all of Klal Yisrael is gathering together for an event, notwithstanding the fact that only a small sliver of the Jewish population was present at the Asifa, whatever edicts were initiated at the event would be binding on all Jews and if someone was not present at the Asifa, they were bound as well. Anyone who would not listen to the edicts was to be considered a defector and would lose their portion in the next world.

R’ Wosner said that the Internet is only permissible at one’s place of business and with a filter. It was not to be used in the home with or without a filter under any circumstances. Further, no school should accept any student who had Internet access, even with a filter, in their home.

R’ Segal said that people think they need it for work, but it’s really just the evil inclination convincing them that they need it because they really don’t need it and they should not have it at all.

Sure, there were plenty of inspirational moments. R’ Wachsman tried to walk back from these more extreme statements. He also made some intelligent remarks about the harms of too much Internet usage (and some erroneous ones as well). R’ Matisyahu Salamon avoided objective rulings in his brief talk. But the damage was done.

The askanim were fooled, or foolish. And so was I.

I apologize for my [tepid] support of the event. It did not make the Internet somewhat kosher for those who want to listen to the rabbis. Nothing positive about the Internet was discussed. Websites with Torah and the ability to communicate with friends and family was ignored. In short, this event set the clock back to zero. I was wrong. Things are more bleak than I presumed.

The current status:

If someone wishes to listen to the “Gedolim” who spoke on the issue, they are forced to leave the Internet behind, for all purposes other than what is absolutely necessary for work. That means no buying things on Amazon, no using the incredible resources of hebrewbooks.org, no emailing family members, no divrei Torah via email or website. Nothing. Over.

The majority of people will take some nice lessons and inspiration from the event but will ignore the edicts and risk losing their portion in the world to come if R’ Wachsman is to be trusted on these matters.

The smart people will continue to educate their children with wisdom and prudence. They didn’t need any Asifa to begin with.

We can mourn or celebrate the end of rabbinic proclamations on the Internet as there is no one who will take them seriously anymore.

The one glimmer of hope is that people will stop relying on rabbis and edicts to make all their decisions and do their thinking for them. It would be great if people started to realize that they need to take responsibility for themselves and their children. They can’t expect to get bailed out of all cognition by rabbis thinking on their behalf. It just doesn’t work. But more importantly, I don’t believe it is what God wants from us.

There Will Not Be a Moment of Silence For the Victims of Terrorism at the Munich Olympic Games

rabbifink — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:59:24 +0000

The upcoming Olympic Games will mark 40 years since eleven Israeli athletes were killed by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympic Games in Munich. The incident was significant for its symbolism as much as it was significant for the lives it took.

The Olympic Games are supposed to be a symbol of international friendship and a message to the world that despite our differences we can compete together without killing each other. Adding to the feelings of good will was the fact that Munich, Germany was hosting the games. It seemed like the perfect vision of a post-World War II world. Nations coming together to battle on the ball field instead of on the battlefield.

Then tragedy struck. Israeli athletes were taken hostage and their release was to be contingent on the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. A raid ensued in an attempt to rescue the Israelis and during the raid, eleven Israelis were killed. It was an international tragedy. Not only had the terrorists taken the lives of eleven innocents, but they had hijacked the Olympic Games. They turned the games from peace to war.

In light of the 40th anniversary of the massacre, the government of Israel requested that a moment of silence be observed at the 2012 London Games in memory of the Munich Massacre.

In a respectful letter, the International Olympic Committee denied the request.

Some are taking this as an affront to Israel. One widow of a terror victim from Munich said that “If the Olympic Games don’t say anything, nothing is going to change.” It is hard for me to understand what she means. There have not been any terror attacks against Israelis at the Olympic Games for 40 years. Apparently, things have changed.

But it gets worse.

In the words of Danny Ayalon:

“Unfortunately, this response is unacceptable as it rejects the central principles of global fraternity on which the Olympic ideal is supposed to rest. The terrorist murders of the Israeli athletes were not just an attack on people because of their nationality and religion; it was an attack on the Olympic Games and the international community. Thus it is necessary for the Olympic Games as a whole to commemorate this event in the open rather than only in a side event.”

As much as I would love to see a moment of silence at the Olympic Games, this response does not sit well with me. It seems a bit incongruous for one nation’s tragedy to create an obligation on the IOC that makes it necessary to have a moment of silence at the games. I appreciate that it is very important to Mr. Ayalon and to Israel, and to me, but that doesn’t make it necessary.

In fact, if it was not just something that Israel wanted on behalf of itself and in reality it was something that all nations would agree is important, where are the statements from all those other nations that they would like to observe a moment of silence? I have a feeling if 30-40 nations wrote “amicus briefs” supporting the moment of silence the response from the IOC would be different.

So here is my suggestion. Get the other countries to request a moment of silence and have the entire group to make a strong push for the remembrance. Lashing out at the IOC is probably not the best idea.

Link: NY Times

Judaism of the Future: My Response to Klal Perspectives Spring 2012

rabbifink — Thu, 17 May 2012 05:38:28 +0000

A few weeks ago, the Spring issue of the Klal Perspectives Journal was released. I noted the excellent article written by Moishe Bane and recommended that everyone read it. (See: Klal Perspectives Spring 2012: One Excellent Article Stands Out From the Rest)

I mentioned in passing that I had my own response to some of the issues that were discussed in the journal.

Writers were asked to address three questions. They are more fully developed on the Klal Perspectives site. These are the questions in general terms:

How accurate is the perception that there is a crisis in the degree of religious fulfillment experienced by observant Jews?
What is the source of this alienation and what can be done to cure it?
Are there proven methods to inspire observant Jews experiencing a gap in religious enthusiasm?

I begin with three short answers. 1. Fairly accurate. 2. Modernity and a fresh approach. 3. No.

Judaism of the Future

In my personal experience, I have come across a lot of people that would somewhat fit into this broad category. All of them know others in the same situation as well. So I would say the numbers are higher than just the number of people I know of personally. Of those people, there is a general feeling of malaise about religion. Some are apathetic to their plight and others are anguished by it. The apathetic ones are resigned to a marginalized relationship with God and their religion. The ones in anguish wish they could turn back the clock to their yeshiva days when they felt something special or they dream of living up to the lofty goals of dveykus and spiritual nirvana.

I think there is a need to discuss this issue. It is a legitimate problem and is definitely causing discomfort among many orthodox Jews. Would I call it a crisis? I don’t know. What is of greater concern is that the issue is framed as an issue of perception. The question implies that happy, fulfilled orthodox Jews are looking at others and are concerned that others are not feeling fulfilled. That is what perception means. I would prefer if the question focused on the actual people who are feeling burnt out of religion and not the assumptions or judgments of others. So I would rather adjust the question to: Is there a significant group of orthodox Jews who feel under-fulfilled by their Judaism?

The answer to that question is undoubtedly, yes.

The more interesting question is the second question. Where does this spiritual melancholy come from?

It was hard to pinpoint a consensus among the journal writers on this point. Most of the writers attributed the problem to a flaw or misstep in Avodas Hashem (religious observance). As I remarked in a previous post, Moishe Bane pointed more toward phenomena outside Mitzvah observance that affect one’s spiritual psyche. While I agree in form, I have a different twist on the substance. I think there is something that is being overlooked in these discussions and that is the historical context of orthodox Judaism’s rise and its place in the modern world.

Taking a big step back and looking at orthodox Judaism from a bird’s eye view gives one an interesting perspective of theology in orthodox Judaism. We have the canonized books of Tanach. The stories in Tanach are replete with miracles, Divine communications with people, complex heroes and villains, struggles with idol worship, violence and war, and stories of high drama. The lens with which these stories are viewed in orthodox Judaism is through the lens of Chazal and then through the eyes of the Rishonim who elucidate the teachings of Chazal.

Then we have the Mishnah, Talmud, various midrashic sources, and their numerous commentaries. The world of Chazal was also a fantastic world that talks of miracles brought about through acts of the saintly Tannaim and Amoraim, an awareness of angels and demons, a hybrid of folk medicine, real medicine, and faith healing, and many other ideas and expressions that were appropriate for Ancient Greece and the medieval era.

More recently, we have the writings of the Arizal and his students. Somewhat related, we have the works of the baalei mussar and the Chassidus which paralleled it. These teachings focus on a transcendental version of Judaism. Their focus on perfection of character and mind, hearkens the typology of a superJew. The person who is complete control of his life, thoughts, and actions. All of it with cosmic proportions. One misstep and worlds are affected. The ultimate goal of these works is to elevate the Jew from man to [almost] angel. But the payoffs are lofty. Ruach HaKodesh, understanding dreams, granting blessings that come true, and practical mystic powers are part and parcel of this genre.

Throughout the last 2000 years, various codes of halacha have been codified as well. The primary sources used today are the Shulchan Aruch and the Mishnah Brurah on Orach Chaim. The status of halacha has been cemented for several hundred years. To be lenient, based on a rishon or gaon not quoted in the Shulchan Aruch is considered unacceptable. Removing statutes that were based on mistakes or assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect is not really permissible. Historical social norms that helped establish halacha are not considered when analyzing halacha today.

I believe this is a fair overview of the basic corpus of Torah that is studied today by orthodox Jews. I also believe that the descriptions of those general bases of knowledge are accurate and I do not mean them in a disrespectful or cynical way. At all.

But herein lies the problem, I think.

The kind of life a Jew expects his religion to provide for him is completely unrealistic in modern terms. We are not going to debate or discuss the veracity or meaning of the fantastic claims made in each of these genres of Torah study. But we are going to assume that this is the world the average orthodox Jew associates with his religion. Years of studying about open miracles, direct communication with God, demons, angels, mystical universes affected by man’s acts, practical kabbalistic feats, and the like, has an effect on the one doing the studying. Its effect is that the person associates the religion with these things.

We hear about stories of great Jewish leaders who made incredible things happen. Whether it is Choni HaMa’agel (drawing a circle and demanding rain – and it worked), Reb Yochanan (turning people into bags of bones with his eyes), Rashi (born after his father tossed a diamond to the sea), Reb Yehuda HaChassid (the wall that moved to save his life), the Baal Shem Tov (flying around Europe), The Arizal (locating ancient graves by “sense”), my great-great-grandfather Reb Elya Lopian (meeting Eliyahu HaNavi), or the Chazon Ish (knowing how to do brain surgery) all these stories reinforce the idea that Jews can do supernatural things if we could just get to that level.

Orthodox Jews are generally smart, well educated (at least in comparison with the majority of the rest of the world), come from good, balanced homes, and are generally part of the middle to upper class of society. In my experience, most people who believe the type of legends, stories, and anecdotes that are taught in yeshivos are less advanced in every other way.

Allow me to explain. In ancient times everybody believed the kinds of things that are described in the Talmud. In medieval times everyone believed in the kinds of things the rishonim speak of. In early modern times almost everybody believed in the same kinds of things we find in mussar seforim and chassidus. The folk cures and superstitions that have crept into halacha were common for the people of their time. Today, the only people who still believe such things are looked at as backward or relics of the past.

I am not using this analysis to judge whether these things are true or whether they are essential to our religion. I am only making the following point: Many of the very basic assumptions of orthodox Jews were prevalent in the rest of the world, each in their time, but they have been discarded by smart, successful, happy people in the non-orthodox Jewish world. They used to believe in similar ideas and stories, but they no longer believe in them.

In other words, it used to be normal to believe in these fantastic abilities and tales. Everyone did it. This was their way of life. It could be explained by pointing to all the unanswered questions that are prevalent in their understanding of the universe. They had no better explanation for various phenomena. Rather they had to believe in the supernatural on a regular basis. God was responsible for everything because they had no other explanation. But now, it is only religious fanatics, naive people, those who live in undeveloped countries and other indigenous groups that still have maintain these kinds of fundamentalist beliefs because for the most part, they are either wrong or unnecessary.

At this point, the orthodox Jew, is confronted with two basic options. Either the beliefs of orthodox Judaism that go against modern sensibilities are true and the beliefs that everyone who was not an orthodox Jew, which were nearly identical in substance and identical in form, were not true in the first place, so it is still reasonable to believe and this is an example of the people of the world “not getting it”. Or, orthodox Jews and everyone else believed in the same kinds of things a long time ago, the fact that society as a whole has moved on is indicative that the beliefs are flawed and perhaps many of them are untrue.

Again, I am only pointing to the options, and not to the validity of either position. I am merely stating what I believe are the reasonable options available to a modern Jew when considering traditional orthodox Jewish beliefs in our modern times.

To me, this is the underlying, unexpressed issue that lies beneath the surface and causes the most internal angst and frustration with regard to spiritual success. The goals are impossible to achieve. None of my friends from yeshiva have ruach hakodesh. None of my rebbeim from yeshiva perform miracles. The universe of our heroes simply does not exist anymore. None of us has experienced or witnessed the kinds of things that are such an integral part of our lore.

Yet, the majority of what we learn today was borne out of that universe. The kind of relationship they had with the Almighty is not able to be reproduced in a modern society. Whereas, every nook and cranny of life was a connection to something Greater, due to a lack of sophistication or flawed understanding of science or a general mood of superstition, the world in which they lived was a world where God was found in everything at all times. It was so easy. In those days, it was stupid to not see God in everything. But in our modern times, where we have answers to many questions, we have reasonable explanations for many things that were mysterious in the past, where we know that superstition is bunk, all that seems so distant, so impossible, and so different from our world.

This causes one of two things to happen. For some people, the ideals become too lofty. “Oy, I’ll never find the supernatural in my life.” If all your life you’ve been striving for something that simply does not happen anymore, the frustration is going to be overwhelming. The result is apathy toward religion.

But for others, the skeptics among us, it can cause people to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It all goes down the drain. “If Chazal were wrong about some things, maybe they were wrong about everything.” If our religion has similar characteristics to ancient pagan cults, to other religions, and to medieval folklore, which parts are “real”? These people will by and large either leave orthodoxy, become orthoprax, or live in the agony of what they believe to be two mutually exclusive truths.

Judaism of the FutureIf I were asked to point at what I believed to be causing spiritual malaise among Klal Yisrael, I would point to this. The idea that our religion has so many characteristics that are similar to clearly false beliefs and that the world of our religious heroes is a world that for the most part, no longer exists.

So what is the cure?

It’s not simple nor is it something that I see happening anytime soon. But I think that R’ Soleveitchik was on the right path in this regard. A new, modern understanding of Judaism and our culture needs to be cultivated. We cannot base our theology on ancient Greek methodologies, or Muslim and Christian approaches from the Middle Ages. If we are confident that we have the truth, and I believe we do, we must believe that it is can be reconciled with modernity with absolute fealty to the words of Chazal which are binding and the halacha that flows from those words. I am not advocating that we abandon halachic Judaism, chas v’shalom. I am advocating for a new approach to Torah that uses modern ideas much in the same way Chazal used ideas from their time and all the great Jewish thinkers over the last 2000 years up until recently.

It can start with our education system and approach to the non-orthodox and to the non-Jews in our world. We have transplanted a model from a time of blood libels, of pogroms, and of Jew hatred, that led to the Holocaust in Europe and are trying to implement it in a free, safe, and friendly United States of America. It’s just more of the same. We can’t expect those models to work anymore. It’s a brave new world. It’s a different world. And just as we can’t expect that style of chinuch (education) to work on these shores, we can’t expect that what inspired and fascinated a water carrier or a farmer in Europe circa 1730 would inspire and fascinate an accountant or an attorney today.

On an individual level, I strongly recommend that people trying to find their place in orthodox Judaism by finding the things that they like. Exploit them. Enjoy them. Focus on what makes you feel good religiously and what inspires you. All the while, maintaining strict adherence to halacha and conforming to the standards of one’s community. But don’t expect the kinds of returns that our great-great-grandparents had. It was a different world with different challenges. What you should expect is that you can have a 2012 type of relationship with God and Judaism. Set that kind of realistic goal and a lot of disappointment and apathy can be avoided.

I really believe that this is not only possible, but necessary. I think we can do it and that we must do it. Each era of Judaism had its challenges and configured a form of orthodox, halachic Judaism to meet those challenges all while remaining strictly adherent to the daled amos shel halacha. We can do the same for the future of our Judaism. We can move past the model of early modern history based on the romanticization of European pre-war shtetl life and forge our own beautiful, successful, passionate orthodox Judaism of the future.

To answer the third question, this method is not proved to work. It is a suggestion that I am confident has some merit. I hope that we can make the adjustments that we need to ensure that our children and grandchildren feel a similar, yet different passion, as our parents and grandparents did before us. I think we can.

PDF version of this article: Judaism of the Future

Some Stereotypes Are True: Jewish Doctors Edition

rabbifink — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:10:44 +0000

Yeshiva University Museum, (I had no idea that there was such a place,) is hosting an exhibit on Jewish doctors. You know the famous joke about the inauguration of the first Jewish president? His mother is in the front row sitting next to her old Jewish lady friends and as the president-elect gets up on the podium, she tells her friend, ya know, his brother is a Doctor!

Yes, there is a Jewish doctor stereotype, but this article on the NY Times about the exhibit gives us a clue as to how this happened. Judaism does not view medicine as heretical or an affront to religion. On the contrary, the doctor is considered the emissary of God and an ally in the healing process.

Judaism does not allow people to rely on God for Divine Intervention or a miracle in lieu of seeking professional medical help. There is no faith healing or reluctance to seek human intervention in Judaism. And so, a culture of favoring medicine over faith is intrinsic to the Jewish experience. In fact, one of the most influential and important Jewish scholars of all time was Maimonides. He was a physician as well as a scholar.

My grandfather was a medical consultant by trade. He was the president of Laniado Hospital in Netanya, Israel. He was the person who built the hospital and brought the Klausenberg Rebbe’s dream into reality. He was very fond of quoting the Rebbe in this regard. When someone would come to the Rebbe for a blessing or advice, before anything else the Rebbe would ask “Vos zugt der doctor” – what does the doctor say.

This was to reinforce the message that health and sickness are very dependent on what the doctor says and what the doctor does.

Of course, the exhibition will also highlight some of the anti-Semitism that Jewish doctors have faced over the last few hundred years. At one point, Catholics were not permitted to seek medical help from a Jewish doctor. Sounds reasonable.

If you are in New York, you might find the exhibit interesting. I hope I will be able to see it some time over the summer.

Link: NY Times

I’m Quoted in the Wall Street Journal Regarding the Asifa

rabbifink — Fri, 11 May 2012 10:35:52 +0000

The Wall Street Journal is taking its turn with the orthodox Jewish community following yesterday’s article in the NY Times. (The NY Times Article on Sex Abuse in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Community)

The article attempts to explain the reasons for the upcoming gathering at Citifield and the arguments against the gathering. It is pretty fair. I don’t have any particular problems with the article.

My problems are with Eytan Kobre who is quoted extensively in the article. The article names him as a spokesperson for the event. I spoke directly to people involved in the planning of the Asifa. I spoke to many other people who spoke to people involved in the Asifa. I never heard this man’s name mentioned a single time. It’s almost as if he was given the title of spokesman just for the article.

When asked about who would be on the program, the spokesman had no response. Some spokesman.

His sales pitch was this gem: “Hopefully we’ll fill the role that the Jewish people have tried to fill from time memorial, which is serving as a beacon to the world and as a force for the transformation of the good in society.”

Does he not know that intelligent people all over the world have been taking precautions against the harms of the Internet over the last 20 years? Does he not realize that filtering companies have millions of subscribers without the orthodox Jewish subscribers? You are late to the party. You can’t be a beacon when you wake up years after everyone else. The gathering is necessary simply because the attendees are less likely to listen to the good, wise advice of non-orthodox Jewish experts and are only willing to rely on the advice of a rabbi.

But when asked about the counter protest dubbed “The Internet is Not Your Problem” that is highlighting victims of sex abuse and the protecting of abusers in the orthodox community, Kobre said: “Whether it’s a legitimate issue or not, and I’m willing to posit that it is a legitimate issue, are they really going to make progress on it by holding a counter rally? It seems like a cheap political circus. It’s sad. It’s unfortunate.”

If rallies don’t accomplish anything, what in the world are you going to accomplish at an Internet rally? Also, very benevolent of him to posit that sex abuse is a legitimate issue.

Another disappointment was the spokesman’s statement about what the gathering will advise. Every person I have spoken to about the Asifa assured me that there would be no objective standard. Each family will follow its communal standard. Some people will only use the Internet for Torah learning. Some will also use it for news. Some will also use it for reading fiction, or non-fiction. Others will use if for social purposes like sharing photos and videos. Others will use it for fun and engage others with social media. And even others may use it to watch a movie or TV show. Each family according to their standard. But the important thing is that everyone is aware that it takes vigilance and education to maintain that standard with the Internet in one’s home.

However, Kobre lay down the law. He said the Asifa will recommend that people “block out all social-media sites including Facebook and Twitter”. This is contrary to everything I heard. If it is true I am upset that I was told differently. If it is not true I am upset that this is what he told the Wall Street Journal.

In other news, the event is sold out. I am flabbergasted and somewhat relieved. They managed to do it somehow and I am happy for them. I hope the event is a success and I also hope the counter rally is a success. We need people to take action and get involved wherever their passion lie. If not for my Law School graduation that day I might have flown to New York to attend both events.

Read the article for yourself. I spoke with the journalist for about an hour. That got condensed into a short soundbite. As I have been accused of doing for my entire life, I “got the last word” in the article. So you’ll need to read all the way to the end.

If you have full access to the Wall Street Journal site read it on their site. If not, I have also linked a pdf version.

Link: WSJ, PDF

Maimonides is Turning Over in His Grave

rabbifink — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:52:53 +0000

An article in Haaretz caught my eye.

Maimonides was a hyper-rationalist. He did not believe in mysticism and fought vehemently against it. One aspect of mysticism is praying at tombs of holy people. Yet, for hundreds of years people have made pilgrimage to Tiberias in the north of Israel to pay respect a the grave of Maimonides and pray at his tomb.

Compared with other holy sites, the tomb of Maimonides is in need of renovations and a facelift. A $10 million project will spruce up the tomb and make it more inviting for visitors.

The problem is that Maimonides himself felt strongly that one should not make a grave into a holy site.

As Rabbi Donniel Hartmann paraphrased the words of Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah: ”For holy men, no headstones should be built on their graves because their words are their memory… and people should not visit graves.” It’s pretty clear that Maimonides would not be in favor of this renovation or visitors to his tomb.

So is it ironic? Or a chutzpah?

It feels similar to Mormons baptizing Jews. It’s one religious group using their beliefs in an ironic way. Jews don’t believe in Jesus so we don’t really care for the Baptism. But Mormons feel like they are doing us a favor. Similarly, Maimonides didn’t believe in praying at grave sites, but mystics probably feel like they are doing him a favor by praying at his site even though they must think that he was wrong about the whole not praying at grave sites thing.

Anyway, I find it amusing.

I saved this post for International Jewish Mysticism Day (otherwise known as Lag B’Omer) to lodge a tiny rationalist counterbalance against the overwhelming mysticism of the day. That is my way of being ironic.

Link: Haaretz

The NY Times Article on Sex Abuse in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Community

rabbifink — Thu, 10 May 2012 06:30:25 +0000

Photo: NY Times

Today’s New York Times features a below the fold, front page article on sex abuse in the Hasidic community of New York. It’s usually not a good thing when orthodox Jews are on the front page of a newspaper, even below the fold. I am aware that this article reflects poorly on Hasidic Jews in particular and orthodox Jews in general. But I have to say that I found the article to be pretty fair overall and an excellent assessment of the situation.

Contra the article in the Forward, this article does not focus on DA Hynes (although it seems there will be an article about him tomorrow), the article in the NY Times focuses on the victims and the social pressure not to report incidents of abuse.

This is the real problem. (See: In Defense of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes)

The article tells the story of several victims and their families who did report the abuse to authorities only to find that they were shunned, excommunicated, or bought off.

According to the article it goes all the way to the top. A family member of the Vizhnitz Rebbe in Monsey is alleged to have offered $20,000 to a victim’s family to drop charges. This is not some low level handler. This is not some shnook with a printer posting signs. This is the Grand Rebbe’s family. If that is how the leadership of thousands of Hasidic Jews handles abuse, what are we to expect from his followers?

Justice Guston L. Reichbach is a hero for standing up to the support of the community behind the accused and the lack of support for the victim. In court, he expressed deep disappointment with the community’s response in support of the abuser. He said there was a “communal attitude that seeks to blame, indeed punish, victims.” He also rebuked the multitude of Hasidic Jews in the courtroom standing in support of the abuser for writing letters in support of the defendant without a single word of “any concern or any sympathy or even any acknowledgment for these young victims, which, frankly, I find shameful.”

I agree.

It was nice to see the workaround for mesira suggested by one rabbi, to tell a psychologist about the abuse and the psychologist will report it. This is completely unnecessary of course. See: Mesira (The Jewish Informant) in Halacha

In addition to the text of the article, there are several very interesting documents attached. Take some time to read them. They are worth investigating.

Also, it is worth noting that there is no greater incidence of abuse in the ultra-orthodox community. There is just a much lower rate of reporting.

But the most difficult and heartbreaking part of the entire article was the quote from Rabbi Zweibel of the Agudah.

First of all, the Agudah has nothing to do with this. Hasidic groups could not care less what the Agudah says about sex abuse. So his quote is a non-sequitor. But he was asked his opinion and he reaffirmed with what we already know. His organization believes that a victim should go to a rabbi before going to the police. To be fair, the Agudah expects rabbis to be reasonable and advise bona fide victims to go to the police. However, there is little evidence that this will happen. I should also add that this is a step forward, believe it or not. It used to be that one was prohibited to go to the police at all, now one can go if a rabbi advises it. Baby steps.

But the worst part about what he said was this brusque comment: “You can destroy a person’s life with a false report”.

Absorb that for a moment.

The concern is that a false report could ruin someone’s life. I have two things to say about this. Both are very important.

First, this is built on a fallacious assumption. That is, that only rabbis have the ability to sniff out a false report and further that law enforcement is incapable of doing this task on their own. Both of this are horribly wrong. Rabbis are not trained to discern between true allegations, innuendo, and pure fabrication. Law enforcement professionals are trained to do that. They do it with regularity and with much success. Charges are not brought unless law enforcement is convinced that the abuse happened AND that it could be proved in a court of law. To say that rabbis are needed to protect innocent people who are falsely accused overstates their abilities and understates the reality.

But much, much, much more important is the implication of this policy. Victims of abuse have their entire lives ruined. One cannot overstate the effect of sexual abuse on a person. It haunts them every day of their life. Contemplating suicide is a normal response for a victim of abuse. It can become impossible for victims to function normally. Indeed, many victims have taken their own lives, unable to cope. Sex abuse kills. There are great rabbis who have held that an abuser is a rodef, a pursuer who is trying to kill someone, and anything and everything that can be done to stop them must be done. Sex abuse destroys people’s lives.

I have never heard of someone who was falsely accused of a crime who committed suicide, who could not have a relationship with his or her spouse, who could not love, who could not trust, who could not cope with life. Is it an inconvenience? Absolutely. I would not wish a false accusation on anybody. But to protect falsely accused people (which are a very rare occurrence) because it could ruin their life, when juxtaposed with the destruction caused by sex abuse comes off as so far removed from reality that it is scary.

To recap: Rabbis are not super-qualified to ascertain the truth of an accusation, law enforcement is qualified. False accusations are rare. When they occur they can harm a person’s life. To spare the falsely accused at the expense of victims is a heinous travesty of misplaced priorities. It is sick.

I want to end on a more positive note. My rabbis have all said that if one is a victim of abuse they must go to the police. These are ultra-orthodox rabbis. My point is that some rabbis get it. They were not the rabbis interviewed in the NY Times, but they are out there. As Rabbi Adlerstein wrote, “If your rov (rabbi) doesn’t get it, think of getting a new rov.”

Link: NY Times

Does Jewish Law Favor Capitalism or Socialism?

rabbifink — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:55:50 +0000

A lot of the political discourse in American and in Europe revolves around economic models. The bold faced names in the discussion are capitalism and socialism. To be fair, no matter what, the United States will have a hybrid version because we will never get to a place where the system is completely capitalistic without taxation and social programs for the poor nor will be ever have a system of 100% taxation and governmental distribution of wealth.

In America, we are somewhere in the middle. Which is why I find it humorous when people call President Obama a socialist or Romney is touted as a true capitalist. It make for good sound bites but the truth is that they are fairly close to one another economically. They might be on opposite extremes on the center. But they are not on opposite extremes of the spectrum the way Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are.

One fun argument is what the Bible has to say about these contemporary economic systems. Pretty much any view can be shoehorned into some passage from the Bible. So it is not a strong argument when one invokes scripture seeing as it so open to interpretation. (See: WWJD?)

However, Jewish Law does not follow the literal translation of scripture. Instead, Jewish Law follows the interpretations and codifications of the rabbis of the Mishnaic period and the analysis and expansion of those laws during the Talmudic period. These are “The Rabbis” that are referred to when people say things like “the rabbis said…”. In Hebrew they are known by their Hebrew acronym, Chazal.

The thing with Chazal is that they actually enacted specific legislation and we know the specific rules that they enforced. They are written in black and white in the Talmud. At Kavvanah Blog Rabbi Isidore Epstein’s introductory essay to the Talmud was posted and among many other fascinating issues, the essay addresses this particular point.

Rabbi Epstein enumerates dozens of regulatory laws in the Talmud. These are laws that were enacted and enforced by Chazal in a governmental capacity. Anyone who has studied the Talmud is familiar with many of these laws. But to see them rattled off one by one and analyzed through the lens of a 20th century scholar is very eye opening.

Here are some examples of Jewish Laws:

Guarantee of public trees from which anyone could pluck
Highly regulated weights and measures
Agencies that regulated quality control of food and other goods
Common rights on real property that was owned
Price control over the sale of chattel
Rights for workers, including going beyond the letter of the law for their benefit
Protection of tenants
Competitive practices when there was no need for additional
Charity taxes that were distributed to the poor

This short list does not do it justice. I think it impossible to read the essay and not draw the conclusion that Chazal endorsed a pretty severe form of socialism. That is not to say that they would endorse the same system for the United States of America in 2012. But it is to say, that the most traditional form of economic policy in orthodox Judaism is pretty close to socialism.

I do note that there were protective policies in place that were designed to prevent over-reliance on the social benefits of Rabbinic Judaism and some policies were skewed more to the side of capitalism. However, it is almost impossible to find ideas like caveat emptor or “the marketplace will decide what is fair or moral” in their system of commerce.

At the very least, the essay shows that many aspects of a social economy were considered moral and preferable to Chazal.

The essay is a must-read for its economic theory as well as its broader implications that are discussed more fully on Kavvanah. I cannot recommend reading the essay enough.

Links: Kavvanah, and the full essay is here: Come and Hear

Does Israel Love Iran? Does Iran Love Israel?

rabbifink — Tue, 08 May 2012 06:51:10 +0000

Most of the news regarding the possibility of conflict between Israel and Iran is not good. The impression one gets from reading the news is that there is an impending Armageddon. The lines in the sand are being drawn, sides are being chosen, heroes and villains are being portrayed.

It is true that the governments of the two nations are ideologically opposed to one another. It is also true that much of the talk regarding this conflict comes from the fringes of each nation. The fundamentalists of Iran dreaming of a region free of the Zionist usurpers and the right wing of Israel (backed by the right wing of the United States) leaving the negotiating table, assuming there ever was a negotiating table, and embracing the challenge of a full blown military operation.

But what do the people want?

For thousands of years, leaders of men have called their followers into war for the sake of whatever the leaders want. In ancient times, in medieval times, in modern times, it made no difference to the warrior if he fought under the flag of red or blue. But it mattered to the their leaders. Citizens born in Germany fought for the Axis Powers and people born in England fought for the Allied Powers.

The men who fight, kill, and die in war have the least to gain or lose by war. Usually, the people at the top, who are the furthest from harm’s way have the most to gain from war. If they win, they control more people. If they lose, they are relegated to civilian status or worse, they are dead.

War in the 21st century almost seems anachronistic. I absolutely respect and revere those heroes in the armed forces who dedicate their lives to our safety. It just seems to me that humanity’s collective resources should be more efficiently spent in our current era of enlightenment. When people were less sophisticated war made a lot more sense than it does today.

So what do the people of Iran and Israel want?

According to some peace activists in Israel and Iran, the answer is that they want peace. The rallying cry of the Israeli activists, Ronny Edry and Michal Tamar is “How can I hate someone I don’t even know?“. First of all, they are absolutely right. How can you? Taking it one step further, some Iranian peace activists on Facebook are lobbying for the Israelis to win a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

I know there are cynics out there who think that this is all part of some plot to soften the Israelis so that they are easier to destroy in the inevitable war. There are people who will find this post offensive. There were plenty who found the cartoon at the top of this post offensive when it was floating around Facebook. But I do believe that there are good people everywhere and there are plenty of peace loving people in all countries. They may not be in positions of leadership or authority, but they exist. Harnessing the power of the Internet, these people can find a common voice and perhaps their voice of reason will prevail.

As our world shrinks, it is harder and harder to invent fake boogeymen for others to despise. How much longer can fascist countries lie to their citizens about freedom and liberty? I don’t think it can be much longer. The fact is that information is impossible to censor and good, intelligent, passionate people are finding that they share more in common with the average citizen of Israel or even Iran than they do with the crazy leaders who want World War III.

Let us hope that the Internet can help spread this message of unity and commonality among groups of people who are not yet friends. Let us hope that our young men and women will be spared the horrors of battle. Let us hope that we can find enough in common with our fellow human beings that killing another for the sake of nationalism or pride will be so abhorrent that it will be eradicated.

If we communicate and share common goals and experiences, we can change the way enemies view one another. There has never been a better time.

Link: Ynet

Sign the Petition: GoPetition.com

See Also: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Melinda Gates Challenges Religious Authority

rabbifink — Fri, 04 May 2012 16:51:32 +0000

In the never ending battle over contraception, the bold faced names are usually the Catholic Church, Evangelicals, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals. and Atheists. The Catholic Church in particular, has a comprehensive statement from the Pope banning the use of contraceptives for Catholics.

When it comes to setting Catholic policy, there is usually only one voice. The Church is that voice.

It takes a special kind of chutzpah and self-confidence to challenge the Church on anything, at least in public. Similar to right wing orthodox Judaism, in the wake of enlightenment and secularism, the Church asserted itself as authority to the exception of everyone else. It wields its power and the people listen. There is no discussion. There is no opportunity for the average person to have their opinion heard and debated by the powers that be. The leaders speak and the people are expected to listen.

In their excellent philanthropy work, the Gates duo of Bill and Melinda have spent billions of dollars in third world countries. Their focus has been on global health and development.

One area that Ms. Gates speaks on is contraception. She believes strongly that family planning is wise for underdeveloped society. This makes a lot of sense.

In one respect it seems as if Ms. Gates, a Catholic, is defying the teachings of her church. In fact, some people have called her out on this. Her response to them was

“as a practicing Catholic,” and “in the tradition of the great Catholic scholars,” it is ” important to question received teachings,” in particular “the one saying that birth control is a sin.”

I for one, was not aware that there was a tradition of great Catholic Scholars to challenge tradition. I though that was punishable by death. I also did not know that Ms. Gates was a great Catholic scholar. But I digress.

The important thing here is that a religious woman, who apparently loves her church and its teachings has decided on her own what the Church’s position ought to be. Almost all Catholic women use birth control. But I always thought that they just felt like ignoring the “correct” teachings of the Church. In the same way many call themselves “Bad Catholics”, they defy their religious leaders on this matter. But Ms. Gates is going a step further. She is saying that the Catholic Church is wrong and that contraception should be permissible.

Angry, self-righteous, right-wing bloggers find this very offensive.

I find this fascinating as in many ways it mirrors the attitudes of some orthodox Jews today. Some say, I know the Gedolim are right, but I can’t listen to everything they say. Others say, the Gedolim are wrong about this specific thing and I am not going to listen to them when they are wrong.

At least in Judaism there is a strong tradition of challenging religious leaders. Although it seems as thought that tradition is being phased out in favor of a more Catholic model.

UPDATE: It turns out that Ms. Gates’ comments were taken out of context. She explains herself admirably in the actual TED Talk. In fact, I think this speech should be watched by orthodox Jews too! Watch it here: Let’s put birth control back on the agenda (thanks commenter milhouse537)

Link: American Thinker

HT: A friend who reads American Thinker

Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief and My Response

rabbifink — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:36:43 +0000

The news outlets reported the findings of a recent article in the Science journal that showed analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Intrigued, I got my hands on the article and while I do not profess to understand the math involved, I am capable of understanding the methodology and social science that explains the findings.

I suggest reading the article to get an idea of how the conclusions of the article were reached. Here is a basic summary:

There are two basic cognitive faculties that we use to make decisions. We use our intuition and we use analysis. In general, religious beliefs are reached using intuition. Analysis is not as commonly used to reach religious belief.

The study attempted to prove that there is not merely a correlation between analytical thinking and disbelief of religion, but there is also causation. The more analytically one thinks, the less one will possess religious beliefs. The study successfully proved that there is a correlation and causation between the two.

The basic idea behind the experiments was to prime random volunteers to think analytically and measure the difference between their responses to questions about their religious beliefs and contrast those with unprimed test subjects. The results, if I can trust their math, were conclusive. There is correlation and there is causation at least in the specific examples used in the study. The religious “test” was very general and did not test specific religious beliefs. Rather it tested belief in God or Supernatural agents and the like.

And so, the religious person is met with a challenge. Is it reasonable to believe in something that correlates with lack of analytical thinking and that analytical thinking causes it to be disbelieved?

The first, more obvious response is simple. Who says that analytical thinking is better, more correct, truer, smarter, etc., than intuition? Clearly, for some things, analytical thinking is superior. But there is no rule that states that analytical thinking is always superior to intuition. Therefore, accepting the results of this study only tell us that intuition is a far better tool for religious beliefs than analysis.

This is a bit of a cop out answer. I admit. That’s because we almost always prefer analysis to intuition when we make important decisions. Also, intuition is more influenced by our subconscious and particularly, by our “religious baseline” which includes, childhood experiences and community.

I think I may have a better answer. Most people think that religion answers the unanswered questions. We call this the God of the Gaps. In ancient times, explanations were needed for a lot of things, and so religious beliefs and superstitions provided those explanations. What is fire? What is thunder? Why does it rain? Why do people get sick? What happens when you die? All these (and hundreds more) unanswered questions were answered by religion.

As questions became answered, the God of Gaps got smaller and smaller. In response, some religious people abandoned religion, others were confident in the few remaining unanswered questions, while the rest doubled down on their beliefs and proclaimed science the enemy and false.

I think, and I have no way of proving this, that most religious people over the course of history believed in the God of the Gaps.

It stands to reason that if one’s belief in God is based upon unanswered questions, increased analytical thinking will promote disbelief. After all, the belief system is built upon not understanding thinking analytically. Many of the core beliefs of religious people are actually impossible or scientifically demonstrated to be false. It follows, that reason and analysis will debunk these ideas in practice, and in the background of one consciousness through priming as the study found.

However, I do not believe in the God of the Gaps. Nor is any orthodox Jew required to believe in the God of the Gaps. Even if we could understand everything in the entire universe, God would still have a role in Judaism. God’s role is the Maker of it all. The One who put the stuff there in the first place. And the One who cares about what happens to it all.

The existence of God and God’s instructions function outside the common area of intuition and analysis. They are a separate mode of thinking. They cannot be proved nor are they intuitive. They function in a completely different way. It is beyond the scope of this post to propose what kind of thinking justifies religious belief. But I do not think that this study ask an unanswerable question, to borrow a phrase, for all religious people.

The orthodox Jew should not allow analytical thinking affect his belief in God. Our belief does not depend on unanswered questions or unexplainable phenomena. So as more questions are answered by science we should not feel threatened. Thus, the view that analytical thinking promotes disbelief in religion should come as no surprise to us, nor should it be perceived as any threat.

We have a strong tradition of asking question, challenging ideas, and thinking analytically. We should continue to embrace this tradition and not be afraid of what we might learn or discover as we are confident that we have the truth.

Link: Science Journal

In Support of the Internet Asifa

rabbifink — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:01:14 +0000

This is not a retraction.

I still think there are many reasons one could oppose the Asifa. I still think women should be able to attend too.

[By the way, I was told by one of the organizers that there is a simple reason women are not attending. The reason is that a large contingent of Jews made it clear that they would only endorse and promote the event if the Asifa was for men only. But up until a few days ago, it was intended to be for men and women. I mention this because some people took severe offense to my suggestion that the Asifa be open to men and women. Clearly, the organizers wanted it to be for men and women, so it's a bit much to say I am being mevazeh the Gedolim when I question why it is for men only.]

But, during the course of my conversation with one of the higher ups at the Ichud HaKehilos I learned a lot and I have something important to say about the Asifa.

There is a huge of community of people who I believe should attend the Asifa. The Asifa is playing an important role and despite the various flaws in vision and execution, it should be attended by a specific (large) category of orthodox Jews.

For starters, the Asifa’s position is that the Internet should not be banned. Their position is that the Internet is a reality of our modern world. We have it. Let’s learn how to use it. This is a major step forward.

For 15 years orthodox Jews have been told that the Internet is assur. The notable exception was for business purposes. The most permissive position of the Gedolim has been that Internet use is permissible “when necessary.”

Some people adhered to this rule. Many did not. Most orthodox Jews that use the Internet are using it for business and pleasure. That means they use the Internet to read the news, learn about the world, follow sports, share photos and videos (of vorts, upsherins and cute babies) with friends and family, read blogs (not just the ones that are “bad”), and socialize (with people with whom it is permissible to socialize).

These people are Internet savvy. They know the risks, they know how to avoid the risks, and they are generally responsible about how they and their children use the Internet.

There are a lot of people who listened to the advice of the Gedolim. They only use the Internet when necessary. They have Internet in their homes for business purposes. They have no idea what else is on the Internet and that their children can find everything that the parents are trying to protect them from with three or four clicks of a mouse. They don’t know that their children are going on the Internet on their mobile devices. They don’t know how to monitor their children’s use of the Internet, they don’t know how to protect their children or even themselves.

I am told that these people exist. And I believe it.

These people need to get to the Asifa. They need to learn about the dangers and the protections immediately. Sure, they could learn everything that the Asifa will teach them, you know, on the Internet. Or they could attend any of the local Internet safety programs that are well attended by non-orthodox Jews. But these people need to hear about these dangers and products from a source they trust. They need to hear it from rabbis or askanim who speak their language and carry the weight of the Gedolim behind their advice. Personally, I think this is unnecessary, but I believe that there is a huge audience for this kind of advice. Is it 40,000 people strong? I don’t know. But that’s a question of execution, not policy.

So if you are in the group of people, or you know others in that groups of people, go the Asifa or tell your friends to go to the Asifa. They need to be there.

The Asifa will educate and the Ichud HaKehilos will assist anyone who needs help in implementing the solutions you want to use. If you need help choosing or setting up a filter, you can call them for free tech support. If you don’t understand how a device works, the Ichud will help you too. I think it’s great. Frum tech support. It will be free and at your service. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a great idea.

A few final words. I do not agree that the Internet should only be used when necessary. I think it should be embraced as a modern tool for growth, relationships, Torah study, socializing, and acquisition of wisdom and knowledge. It seems that the Asifa is continuing down the road of “use it only when necessary.” I hope they come around to the more liberal view because I think we should think more positively, and harness the incredible power of the Internet for good.

I also think that framing the Asifa as a solution to the problems in our communities is flawed. It is its own problem and has its own solutions. The Asifa will not prevent people from leaving the fold, nor will it save marriages that are doomed, nor will it ensure that everyone davens with proper kavvanah, nor will it destroy skepticism. I sincerely hope that people are sophisticated enough to understand that those problems run much deeper than the Internet. Our chinuch needs improvement. The Internet is not the broader problem here. It is chinuch. Destruction via the Internet is a symptom of a problem, not the actual problem. Treating symptoms may make us feel better but it does not solve anything.

Finally, the term “dangers of the Internet” means a lot of things to a lot of people. It seems that the Asifa is in fact most concerned with access to pornography. In our very lengthy conversation, the word “blog” was never mentioned in connection with the Asifa. I was pleased to learn this and I hope that this holds true.

However, there are other issues associated with the Internet. Like many permissible activities, it can be addictive. Awareness should be raised regarding this as well. Jut because something can be addictive does not mean it should be completely shunned. I also think that many people do consider blogs and “kefira” sites to be a major “danger of the Internet.” Obviously, these dangers are community specific and no general rules should be made. Lastly, some people consider social media an inherent “danger of the Internet.” This is a fallacy. Learn how to use the tools properly and it can be a wonderful and positive use of the Internet. Use them improperly and they can indeed be very dangerous for one’s physical and spiritual well-being.

——-

My advice: If you have the Internet in your home (and I think you should), do not allow any non-adults to access the Internet without protections. The best way to do this is to create a new user account for non-adults that has limited access to the Internet for the account user. The proper protection can be ensured by only granting access to specific websites. That means that the account user can only access pre-approved sites. Don’t rely on a filter. Give them access to specific, pre-approved sites. No filter is foolproof. If you let them on social media sites, monitor their friends and interactions. Obviously, make sure you don’t let them onto the adult user account on the computer. Protect it with the best password in the history of passwords. Finally, don’t give your child or teen any devices that have Internet access. If you want to protect yourself from accessing specific sites there is no solution other than self control.

My Uncle Ronnie Greenwald Speaks at the Agudah Convention

rabbifink — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:22:30 +0000

My great uncle, Ronnie Greenwald is not the kind of person who is usually invited to speak at the Agudah Convention. It’s too dangerous. He speaks his mind, is willing to challenge people, and he is very respected and beloved by the orthodox Jewish community.

Apparently, something got in the head of the Agudah Convention powers that be and they invited him to speak about the challenges some of our youth are going through in their lives. He speaks from experience, excellent instinct, and wisdom.

Two things to note:

Random clapping at the wrong times is cringeworthy but sadly humorous. You’ll notice what I am talking about.

The people who needed to hear this speech more than anybody else were not present. When the speech ends you can see the dais is empty. The rabbis in leadership positions needed to hear this speech more than anyone else. Maybe you can send then the youtube clip to watch on their shmutz phones.

Enjoy the speech. There is so much in there and almost all of it is right on the money. Please send this to as many people as you can:

HT: Mordechai Hanover on Facebook

In Defense of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes

rabbifink — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:56:57 +0000

The Forward is fuming at the Brooklyn district attorney for not releasing names of sex abuse suspects in the orthodox Jewish community. The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to give citizens access to government documents and information including the names of individuals arrested for sex abuse.

The DA explained to the Forward that these names are different than other names because they are all of the names requested are part of Hasidic groups and have allegedly abused Hasidic victims. Therefore there is a significant danger that the names of the victims would be discovered.

The Forward then cites several legal scholars who feel that this is an abuse of discretion by the DA. The reactions to this story have been equally heavy-handed. Some going as far as saying that DA Hynes is bought and paid for by the Hasidic community.

In legal terms the decision might be wrong. But I don’t think the anger over this decision should be directed at Hynes and the DA’s office. I think they are acted reasonably under the circumstances. I really do.

In the Hasidic community, the understanding sex abuse is only its infant stages. Their reaction to abuse is pretty medieval. It’s hardly as if their is a firm grasp of the harms caused by abuse nor the proper approach to dealing with abuse. This is the reality. There is no way around it.

What would happen if the names were released and the victims names were discovered? It’s not far-fetched to assume that the victims would be outed. Once the names are outed you can be sure they would be called liars, mosrim, attention-seekers, and other names. It’s entirely possibly that some “well-meaning” vigilantes would take matters into their own hands and silence the victims with threats or violence.

The DA is correct in not releasing the names. But don’t blame him. Blame the community that would prefer to silence victims and reward its abusive members than do the right thing and weed out this horrible plague from its midst.

I am positive that if the community would deal with abuse like any other normal community the DA would feel comfortable releasing the names of the alleged abusers. But as it stands now, he cannot risk the health or even lives of the victims. I agree with this decision.

This does not give the DA a pass for not prosecuting cases from the community that should be prosecuted. But I think it goes to show just how difficult such prosecutions would be without the cooperation of witnesses and victims. The problem here is not the DA. In fact he understands the community better than his critics.

It’s not a cover up at all. It’s protection.

Fix the community and justice will follow.

Link: The Forward

Klal Perspectives Spring 2012: One Excellent Article Stands Out From the Rest

rabbifink — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:42:37 +0000

Klal Perspectives is a great journal of articles written by orthodox Jewish rabbis and writers. The difference between Klal Perspectives and other journals is basically the content. KP is not a halacha journal. It is a practical journal.

The articles are not about well researched, fine nuances of Jewish law. The articles are about the issues that the orthodox community is facing and how to deal with them. Because the articles are not academic, they appeal to more people and more people are capable of writing articles for the journal. In a pleasing development, several articles have been authored by women. Lay-people are also featured as writers.

I loved the first issue in the fall. I was less impressed with the third issue in the winter. In the spring issue that was recently published the journal found its groove once again.

Each issue faces a specific topic or challenge. The authors are invited to respond with their best ideas and draw from their personal and professional experience.

I always enjoy Rabbi Adlerstein’s writing and his work in Klal Perspectives does not disappoint. But the best two articles of the three issues were written by one man. Both of his articles were incredibly insightful and innovative. That man is Moishe Bane.

Perhaps one day we will revisit his first article. While the spring issue is still fresh I wanted to invite everyone to read his article in this issue. The challenge being discussed in the spring issue is in the words of Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel: “the increasing numbers from across the spectrum who feel no meaningful connection to Hashem, His Torah, or even His people.”

Most of the article I read accepted this premise and thought of ideas that could be implemented by tinkering with the existing system and model. Moishe Bane did not do that.

His article basically rationalizes and almost justifies the skepticism and burnt-outedness of many orthodox Jews. But his solution is not to read more books, read different books, go to different classes, sing more, etc. et al. His ideas are to rebuild the orthodox Jewish community. His solution is a social one. And I could not agree more.

He encourages us to take pride on our community and to ensure that there is a community worthy of our pride:

Jews’ identification with the observant Jewish community is sustainable only if the community is a source of pride. If community conduct and ethical standards are compromised, many will abandon their social allegiance, ultimately resulting in a theological abandonment, as well. These are the fundamental principles of chillul Hashem, and the implications are enormous. Ethical business practices, family harmony, and basic menchlichkeit must become hallmarks of being a frum Jew, as one would expect authentic Torah to mandate. If accomplished, frum Jews could then take pride in their community, and see the community’s values as demarcations with which to identify.

Further, he implores us to interact socially. Do things together with other orthodox Jews. Have friends. Real friends:

There must be a renewed emphasis on deepening the basic social connections between members of the Orthodox community. The importance of friendships with others who share one’s values must be emphasized and facilitated. Time spent with others within the community must be encouraged. It is critical that the expansive role that observant people play in their professional and business environments does not redefine them socially, as well. Connecting with G-d begins with connecting to Klal Yisrael, and these efforts must be forged through shuls, schools and other communal organizations. Attending shiurim or learning in chaburas often provide the needed camaraderie, as do chesed endeavors, but not all Jews have access to these opportunities. Ordinary social interaction, per se, among frum Jews must also play a critical role.

I would only add that part of the reason social interaction is so minimized and difficult is because of financial pressures and strain, large families, over-hyped tznius concerns, among other non-essential beliefs and practices. We can also attempt to treat the source of this malady and not simply treat the symptoms.

Please read the article. Comment on it here or anywhere if you have reactions and thoughts.

I intend to write my own response to this challenge. I think I have a different perspective than the other writers and my ideas about this subject are certainly not conventional. Hopefully I will be able to write it up soon.

Link: Klal Perspectives, Moishe Bane’s Article

The Results Are In: Morality of Eating Meat

rabbifink — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:49:02 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, a great discussion on the blog and Facebook was spurned by a question raised by the NY Times Ethicist. The question was a challenge for people to explain why they eat meat. The Ethicist invited responses and suggestions promising that the best ones would be selected and presented to the people for a vote.

That day has come and the responses are predictably weak. Six essays were published online and readers can vote for their favorite.

None of the responses justify eating meat en masse or the farming of animals purely for the sake of slaughter. I hope some responses of that nature were either omitted by the Ethicist as opposed to none being submitted.

A response that is sure to be popular is that indeed it is not necessarily the right thing to do, but we are not perfect so why start with eating meat? That’s an honest approach but not a logical approach.

The weakest answer is to “why is it ethical to eat meat?” was the guy who said it isn’t so he doesn’t but he will when artificially produced meat is for sale. Talk about avoiding the question!

Anyway, I don’t have much to add, I just felt it my duty to report that the Ethicist has selected some favorites and you can vote and comment on them.

Bon appétit.

Link: NY Times Magazine

Why Orthodox Jews Should Follow the Fight Between the Vatican and the LCWR

rabbifink — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:30:46 +0000

It is foolish for orthodox Jews to ignore the recent spat between the Vatican and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Their dispute rises from a recent ruling issued by the Vatican that calls for the reigning in of a group of U.S. nuns who have challenged some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Their approach is being called radically feminist and the Vatican is appointing a bishop to oversee the LCWR.

The radical feminism of the LCWR basically amounts to their challenging the Vatican on two issues. The first, the issue of female clergy. Women are still precluded from positions of authority in the Catholic Church. The LCWR has challenged this position in the hope that the Vatican would consider allowing women into the hierarchy of its leadership. The Vatican has not taken to this kindly. The second area that the radical feminists have defied their leadership is on the issue of contraception. The LCWR supports the American Healthcare Act’s requirement that employers provide birth control to employees. The Vatican opposes this greatly. You can see why they are upset.

Besides stirring controversy, the LCWR is a powerful charity and social service group. They provide help and support to many needy people. Their feminist positions are only a tiny speck of what they do.

Why is it foolish for orthodox Jews to ignore this story? Because the same exact issues are brewing and bubbling beneath the surface in orthodox Judaism.

On the far left of orthodox Judaism, women are asking for and being granted greater communal roles. In the center of orthodox Judaism, women are more involved in communal affairs than ever before. On the far right of orthodox Judaism, women are basically in the same position they were in 100 years ago. But the premises are being challenged. Some women want more. Some communities want more for and from their wives and daughters. The Vatican has held fast and strong to the prohibition against female clergy. The orthodox Jewish establishment has done the same. The next decade will be very interesting.

Meanwhile, birth control is also becoming more and more of an issue. Orthodox Judaism never held the same way as the Vatican with regard to contraception. But recently, the leadership aligned itself with fundamentalist Christians in the American Healthcare Act debate. The motives behind this are unclear. Either it was a political move or a slippery slope argument or it was a doctrinal decision that held contraception to be prohibited. We don’t know and it doesn’t really matter.

What does matter is the stories and rumblings that I hear from women and their husbands about their birth control issues. This will get a full post of its own eventually, but suffice to say that this is already a major issue for orthodox women and their husbands and its prominence will only increase over the next few years.

So while we don’t have a Vatican, nor do we have a LCWR, we do have some of the same challenges of modernity that the Catholic Church is facing. Historically we have been ahead of them in adapting. In recent years our power of adaptation has dwindled. These two issues will challenge us to adapt or circle the wagons. Let’s hope we make the right choice.

Link: NY Times

Further reading on this subject on this blog: Controlling Birth Control

Restoring Credibility to the Beis Din System

rabbifink — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:47:14 +0000

About six months ago, Rabbi Hershel Schachter sat down with Ami Magazine for an interview. The conversation was mostly about the Jewish court system that we have in place today. R’ Schachter expressed deep reservations about the Beis Din system.

He exposed corruption and wrongdoing within the system. He didn’t pull punches and he spoke with the authority of a true Torah giant with a lifetime of personal experience. The article was a bit of a sensation. His opening salvo: “The present system is terrible.” From there, R’ Schachter spoke from personal experience about the flaws, inadequacies, and corruption in the system.

Here a few choice quotes:

Q: Are you saying there is a problem with the dayanim?
A: Of course. Do you think that all of the dayanim are honest? Many are acting like toanim; many of the toanim are acting like criminals. They make up their minds in advance that their side has to win,

Q: Could there be a watchdog group, with rabbanim getting together to examine how the batei din are behaving?
A: It’s a safek sakana [possible danger] for the watchdog group; they’re going to be killed.

Are all batei din corrupt? Probably not. So how are the good batei din supposed to separate their courts? How will people know which courts are honest? Is there a way to become more transparent?

I think this is the motivation behind a journal that found its way to my mailbox this week. The Journal of the Beth Din of America is a new publication that I believe was created to set itself apart from the the negative stereotypes illustrated by R’ Schachter’s comments.

From the introduction to the first edition:

Yet despite a well earned reputation for adjudicating cases fairly, efficiently and competently, the public lacks a full understanding and appreciation for much of the work of the Beth Din of America. This is because, like all batei din, the Beth Din is committed to confidentiality for the individuals, families and firms that utilize its services. Unlike secular court decisions which are published and accessible, beit din arbitration awards are provided only to parties and their legal counsel.

The publication of The Journal of the Beth Din of America is an attempt to change this situation, and educate the public about Jewish law as applied in a beit din, with particular attention to the outlook and practices of the Beth Din of America. The journal will primarily feature articles by dayanim of the Beth Din of America and other contributors. In each issue, we also hope to publish decisions actually rendered by the Beth Din of America (appropriately anonymized and approved for publication by the parties).

I think this is great. The journal features several types of articles. The articles are great for their content. Even if there was no side benefit other than to increase Torah study and wisdom, the journal is great. Most importantly, decisions of the Beth Din of America will be published after being anonymized. This will increase the Beth Din of America’s credibility as their decisions will be transparent and available for all to see. Further, it will either expose other Batei Din as closed walls with less accountability and hopefully it will incentivize them to clean up their acts.

It’s a small step, but an important step in the right direction. Kudos to the Beth Din of America.

Link: The Journal of the Beth Din of America

The Difference Between the Authority of Science and Religion

rabbifink — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:58:53 +0000

A few weeks ago, Stanley Fish wrote a two part series in the NY Times about science, religion, belief, and evidence. Fish makes the argument that science has jumped the shark and is no different than religion at this point. His proof is from a statement made by Richard Dawkins. In my opinion, Fish is 100% wrong.

In an interview on MSNBC, Dawkins was explaining that science is not based on belief, rather it is based on facts and demonstrable evidence. To bolster his point he said:

“… in the arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, you can actually cite chapter and verse.”

Fish then goes on to say that since Dawkins invokes the terminology so often used by religion – “chapter and verse”, he is in effect showing his hand and science has become faith based just like religion. In other words, citing chapter and verse in a scientific journal is an appeal to authority much the same way citing chapter and verse in the Bible is an appeal to authority. Fish argues that science is supposed to be based on evidence not an appeal to authority. Once it becomes cited by chapter and verse, it becomes faith based just like religion.

This is a common argument made by religious people. I have no idea if Stanley Fish is religious or not, but this is not a new argument. The premise of the argument is that proving something by citing a document is qualitatively the same when the document is a scientific paper and when the document is a religious text.

Fish got a million and half emails telling him he was wrong. So he doubled down and tried to explain himself in Part 2. To accomplish this, Fish engages in some sophisticated sophistry and linguistics to sat that there is no such thing as evidence in science nor is there such a thing as data. Really, we can know nothing so science is a circle of fervent believers in a self-fulfilling club. Plus, there might not be an objective truth so science and religion can both be true.

It sounds nutty because it is.

Science is different than religion. Its works can be cited as evidence while religious texts cannot. There is a very good reason for this. A scientific paper uses logic, reason, demonstrable evidence, and experimentation to make its points. Once something has been proved or accepted as a valid scientific principle it no longer needs to be “proved” each time it is invoked. It can be cited as chapter and verse for expediency and efficiency of argument. You don’t have to believe in anything to use science as evidence. However, citing chapter and verse from a religious text is completely circular. The religious text may be false, subjectively interpreted, or invented by humans. There is no authority attached to the text unless one subjectively gives the text that authority. It is exactly like citing a work of fiction as authority.

Fish is correct that there is much to learn from sacred texts even if they are works of fiction. Literary criticism is an important discipline and can teach us a lot about our world and provide great lessons for life. But they are subjective lessons and personal to each individual. They cannot be cited as objective authority. This is why citing chapter and verse to religious texts is not as convincing as citing chapter and verse in a scientific study. One is objective, the other subjective.

As a believer, I find my religious texts binding and authoritative. I can, and should cite religious texts when discussing my religious beliefs with fellow believers. But if I am arguing with a non-believer, those religious texts are not only irrelevant, they are weak when compared with science. If I want to make a point to a non-believer I need objective data. I can cite chapter and verse to a study to make an objective argument. I cannot cite chapter and verse to a religious text to make an objective argument.

It is counter-productive for believers to think their beliefs are able to be proved objectively. This only engenders a false sense of security, condescension towards non-believers or believers in other religions, and vulnerability to the difficulties presented by objective inquiry into religious beliefs. Instead, believers should emphasize that their religion is a framework for dealing with life’s challenges and its religious texts are valuable to those who believe in them. When determining whether it is reasonable to believe in an ancient text whose Authorship cannot be proved, one should take all factors into account and accept that in the end, belief in God or ancient texts will never be as compelling or convincing as a scientific study but that does not really matter.

Just because a scientist used the words “chapter and verse” in an argument does not make science a new faith based religion. Science and religion answer different questions using different methodologies. Pretending they are the same or similar in their approach to evidence is a fallacy that helps no one.

Link: NY Times Part One and Part Two

Ex-Hasids Get a Reality Show: This is SO not a good idea

rabbifink — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:43:54 +0000

It was last Pesach that the NY Times slipped an article about Kiryas Joel under the blogosphere’s radar. This year, the Post slipped an article almost under that same radar about a reality show featuring ex-hasids. But just because many of the blogs hibernate during Pesach, doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about the show now.

Details are scant, but it seems that several of our more well-known ex-hasids will be starring in a reality show. We met Pearlperry Reich and Shauli Gros on the Dr. Phil show (Pearlperry Reich on the Dr. Phil Show). Since then, we have become friends on Facebook. Now they are joining forces with Luzer Twersky to tell the world about how they left their homes and their previous lives.

The story is familiar enough. An insular, old-fashioned world meets the fast-paced, liberal world. The results are bound to be emotional, funny, and dramatic. The show has not yet been picked up, so there’s a chance it never airs. If it does air, the stars hope it will improve the lives of the members of the communities they left. By giving a strong voice to the ex-hasid, the show might expose some of the less savory aspects of insular life. If the claims are false, the show will be a terrible pock on the Jewish community. If the claims are true, then either we should take pride in those claims or if they are negative, try to fix them.

But in the end, this show is a terrible idea. I can only assume that the stars of this show have never seen reality TV shows. These shows are train wreck television. The entire point of these shows is to portray uncomfortable situations and manufacture drama. No one comes out of a reality show smelling like roses. No one. Ever.

Put it this way – words that have never been stated after watching a reality show: “Wow, those people seem like such lovely human beings. I hope they have much success in their lives and hopefully I can be as well-adjusted as them one day.”

And so, as much as I am interested in the story that these people have to tell and as much as I empathize with many of their struggles, I can only see how this show will only harm them and their new ex-hasid community. There are other, better ways of pushing their agendas forward. If you have a message and an idea, the worst way that I can think of to spread that idea is on a reality show. How about a documentary? Or a well-written informative website? Or a speaking tour? Or writing a book? Reality TV is lazy. It is lazy for its producers. It is lazy for its viewers. But most of all, in this case, it is lazy for its stars.

If you have a true message and a great story, don’t sully it on reality TV. Please.

Link: NY Post

Frankfurt to Tel Aviv in 2012: A Pesach Message

rabbifink — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:10:05 +0000

I am blessed to be able to spend Pesach in Israel this year. En route, we made a stopover in Frankfurt, Germany.

I know many people who are uncomfortable with anything remotely German. They do not buy products from Germany, they would never visit for recreation, and they have a general distaste for the German language. I understand these people. I am not one of them.

It can be difficult to let go of the feelings that associate the Holocaust to Nazis and Nazis to Germans. For some, it is disrespectful to those who perished in the Holocaust to treat Germans like everybody else. I am not judging these people. At all.

As I said, I am not one of these people. It could be that I had no family who fell victim to the Nazis so it is less personal for me. I like to think that I should bear no resentment towards grandchildren and great-grandchildren of murderers. After all, they committed no crime. The physical land caused us no harm and the people who caused the harm are long gone. It seems that hatred towards present day Germany is irrational at best.

But again, I can understand this irrational belief.

In fact, when I think of Frankfurt or Germany my mind immediately turns toward R’ Hirsch and then to the incredible legacy of German Torah and Judaism stretching back to the first exile 2500 years ago.

Just because I have positive feelings towards modern Germany does not mean that the recent significance of the place is lost on me. I felt a particularly strong stirring inside me as our El Al jet raced down the runway and took off towards Israel. The surge of emotion that I felt brought tears to my eyes. It relates to Pesach and I think provides us a nice message as we begin this year’s Pesach celebration.

What would our brothers and sisters have done 70 years ago to hop on a plane in Franfurt and fly to Israel. First of all, they were not free to leave. They were in concentration camps, death camps, in death marches, in hiding, or on the run. Our Jewish brothers and sisters could not just leave the country like I did today.

More importantly, they had no Land of Israel to go to! Today, any Jew who wants to go home has a home in Israel. Seventy years ago, there was no Jewish homeland. Today there is a Jewish homeland. Imagine the emotional lift the victims of the Holocaust may have felt had they known that if they survived, they would be able to settle in Israel.

So taking off in Germany and landing in Israel on an El Al plane is a powerful thing. We cannot overlook how lucky we are that we can choose to freely make that trip that so many before us have yearned for so strongly.

It is also worth noting that we should also pause and reflect on these modern times where previously held and entrenched (false) ideas about people who are different from one another are slowly being purged from our global community. There is plenty of work to be done. But it is worth considering how far we have come as well.

As we head into Pesach and we are commanded to feel the freedom our forefathers felt as they left Egypt, it seems prudent to revisit the more recent euphoric redemption that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. In these heady times of freedom and a Jewish homeland it can be difficult to conjure up the emotions of a nation in slavery in search for a homeland. For more than 1500 years, the seder was a rallying call to return to the land of Israel and to feel free once again. Today we are free and we can all go to Israel if we chose to do so.

We have so much for which we must be thankful. The Jewish world today is nothing like the Jewish world from which so many of our grandparents and great grandparents came. Sometimes, it takes an El Al flight from Frankfurt to Tel Aviv mere hours before Pesach to put it all in perspective.

Wishing everyone a chag kasher v’sameach.

לשנה הבאה בירושלים הבנויה

Is Elijah the Prophet a Jewish Version of Santa Claus?

rabbifink — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:42:47 +0000

A highlight of many Pesach Seders is Eliyahu HaNavi’s yearly visit. No one can see him, but some people could swear that his cup is not quite as full as it was when it was poured.

In my review of the The New American Haggadah | Book Review, I mentioned in passing that the idea that Elijah the Prophet visits Jewish homes on Passover is not as obvious as most people think. I have challenged people at my seder to find a real, serious source for this belief. None has been provided as of yet. At my Seder I don’t open the door for Elijah. I do open the door for Shfoch Chamascha, but not for the prophet.

There is not one mention of this yearly visit to every Jewish home in the entire corpus of Talmud or Midrash. I only know this because I have seen the research of others. I would not be able to make a statement like that on my own. Maybe one day.

According to an article in the Jewish Action the first mention of this nocturnal visit was in the 15th century. You read that right. Until the 15th century it seems that no one imagined that Elijah visited their seder. Is it possible that he only started visiting seders in the last 600 years? Seems unlikely.

I think the source of confusion is actually pretty reasonable. There is an obligation to drink four cups of wine at the seder. This is alluded to by the four expressions of redemption in Exodus. There is a fifth expression that sounds almost like an expression of redemption but there is no corresponding cup. The word is v’heiveisi, God says “I will bring” you to the Land of Israel. To symbolize this fifth expression a fifth cup is poured but not drunk. This further alludes to our hope that we will all be brought back to the Land of Israel in its full splendor and glory. We fill this cup just as we make those prayers in our seder during Hallel and Nirtzah.

The cup became known as the Cup of Elijah because it is Elijah the Prophet who will usher in the redemption.

Another twist is that some say that we will drink a fifth cup once we are redeemed. Others disagree. Elijah will resolve the disputes in the future and so this cup of dispute is known by his name.

Meanhwhile, Hallel begins with an symbolic opening of our doors to proclaim that we are confident in our relationship with God. Just after filling a cup of redemption the door is opened. It is easy to see how the imagination could wander a bit and to add some spice to a long seder the legend of Elijah visiting our homes was born.

Does this mean that this legend is wrong? Is it bad or harmful?

It could be. But I don’t think it has to be. The truth is that our traditions have changed and adjusted over time. This is another example of that phenomena. But it is harmful to pretend that the tradition is as ancient as the seder itself.

When you open the door at your seder, think about the development of Judaism in general and in particular the legend of Elijah the Prophet.

Link: OU.org

Metzitza B’Peh Version ∞: A House Divided

rabbifink — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:05:25 +0000

For the zillionth time since the start of the 19th century, there is a Metzitza b’Peh controversy. I have nothing particularly new to add to the foray but I do have an insight about the way the lines are drawn in this conflict that may help others understand exactly what is really going on. Every source in this post is found in previous writings. This post is a very broad summary with an important implication.

Let’s start at the beginning. The Mishna in Mesechta Shabbos says that we perform a circumcision on Shabbos and also metzitza (suction on the wound to draw out the blood) is performed. Apparently the metzitza was done by placing the mouth on the wound and sucking The Gemara and the Rambam explain that metzitza is done to promote healing and prevent unnecessary harm from befalling the infant. This is clearly a medical concern. As Dr. Shlomo Sprecher shows in his masterful article on the subject, this was the common view of medicine at the time of the Talmud and through the era of Maimonides. Similar medical views are found in the premier medical treatise of the era, Galen’s Corpus.

In the 19th century, the Jewish community became aware that the medical benefits of metzitza were lilkey outweighed by the potential harms of metzitza b”peh. Some rabbis recommended discontinuing the practice. Notably, the Chasam Sofer and R’ Hirsch tried to urge their communities to use a glass tube to create the suction instead of direct contact with the mouth.

Others pushed back. For example, the Maharam Schick elevated metzitzah b’peh to halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai status. This was to make it unimpeachable. It was also the first mention of this halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai in recorded history (I believe). The issue was far from settled, even in the 19th century.

The controversy arose again when several babies were diagnosed with a virus and it was presumed that the virus was contracted during metzitza b’peh. Since that time, many articles have battled over whether the babies were really infected because of metzitza b’peh or not. Other articles analyze whether or not the baby is actually placed into danger via metzitza b’peh or not. I am not qualified to have an opinion on this matter. To me, it is irrelevant. Everything we know about sickness and germs tells us that this is a bad idea from a medical standpoint. No one living in the West in 2012 could say with a straight face that placing one’s mouth over a fresh wound is a great idea. We will ignore this point of contention. It is not relevant for the purposes of this post.

Most recently, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky was quoted in the The Jewish Week regarding this issue. According to them:

In a phone conversation with The Jewish Week, Rabbi Kamenetsky noted that in his community “as far as I know, they do metzitzah with a tube [a sterile pipette that prevents the mouth from directly touching the wound].”

When asked about rabbis who believe that using a tube is not valid under Jewish law, Rabbi Kamenetsky replied, “Nobody holds like that.” Told of those who make this claim, the apparently incredulous rabbi said only, “I don’t think there’s a response to them.”

The rabbi also expressed disbelief about those who would insist on the practice despite its links to the transmission of disease to infants.

“Chas v’shalom [God forbid], if [children are] getting sick [from oral suction], [you] wouldn’t do it,” under Jewish law, he said.

Rabbi Kamenetsky also stated that because it is permissible to do the suctioning with a tube, which poses “no risk at all” to the infant, this should be the practice.

The reaction to this statement among the orthodox community was mostly positive. A survey of comments from the various Jewnews sites seems to indicate a respectful approach to this characterization of R’ Shmuel’s opinion.

But then R’ Shmuel “clarified” his remarks. And by clarified, we mean that he softened his stance significantly. The Jewsnews™ sites reported that R’ Shmuel certainly does not advocate banning metzitza b’peh. Rather, if a danger is established, a tube should be used. Further, no one holds that a tube is not “good enough” for metzitza b’peh.

Anger is being directed at the Jewish Week for misconstruing R’ Shmuel’s statement. This is really silly because the two statements are entirely reconcilable. There is no reason to bash the Jewish Week for its take on R’ Shmuel’s statement.

But what is really going on here? Why do some people insist that metzitza b’peh is such an integral part of circumcision? Especially when it is clear that great rabbis have permitted the use of tube and in light of the fact that the entire point of metzitza is to promote healing as per ancient medicine? Why is this considered such a holy practice?

There are two answers (I think). One is reactionary, the other is ideological.

The reactionary approach views circumcision as a holy rite that has been mocked and banned more than several times throughout our history. The feeling is that even one step backward (really forward) from this ancient tradition places the entire thing in jeopardy. If circumcision is being attacked in any way, shape, or form, we must attack back. We fight for circumcision. Even when there is no real reason to fight.

I think this is a popular approach. Clearly it is based on a huge fallacy. But it is nonetheless understandable. Yet I think the real reason is the second reason.

The ideological approach is based on a mystical source. A 17th century kabbalist wrote that there is a kabbalistic reason for metzitza b’peh. The Talmud, which speaks of medical reasons, is trumped by the mystical source which speaks of kabbalistic reasons. The idea is that:

…man possesses a foreskin because of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

The same parts of the body which caused this distortion must restore the body to its natural perfection. Adam’s hands took the forbidden fruit and his mouth ate it, so the hands of the mohel remove the foreskin and the blood is removed with the mouth. (Source: Rabbi Korobkin’s excellent article.)

I think this source is the real reason behind the entire kerkuffle. Like few other areas of Jewish law and practice, metzitza b’peh places the mystical and rationalist points of view at loggerheads.

According to the rationalist, the reason for metzitza b’peh is medical. There was no emphasis on using the mouth and our great rabbis are not to be blamed for their faulty science. There is no sacred meaning behind metzitza b’peh and therefore it can be pushed aside for a more modern solution that is equally acceptable in halacha. According to the mystic, the reason for metzitza b’peh is kabbalistic. Some tikkun is taking place when the mohel places his mouth on the circumcision wound and therefore it must be upheld at (almost) all costs. Perhaps our great rabbis of the Talmud were not speaking of some physical medicine when they said that metzitza b’peh was necessary for medical reasons, rather it is a spiritual cure for an esoteric flaw in humanity.

This is where we stand today. Mystics and Rationalists living under one roof. A house divided. Who will prevail? Is strength in numbers? Or is strength in reason? We will likely find out the answer to that question soon enough. In the meantime, I think it is prudent to see the sides of this battle for what they are, mysticism vs. rationalism. Again. I think.

Links (please read them all): R’ Slifkin, R’ Korobkin, Dr. Sprecher, The Jewish Week, Matzav.com

Something About the Newsweek Rabbi List

rabbifink — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:12:30 +0000

Personally, I find the idea of Newsweek listing the Top 50 Most Influential Rabbis a tad offensive. It feels like a dog and pony show. It also seems like the same people make the list every year for their lifetime accomplishments. So it is a measure of yearly influence? Or cumulative influence? And who cares anyway?

My feelings on the list are most aptly expressed by this post by Steven I. Weiss from 2009: Why Newsweek’s 50 Most Influential Rabbis…Aren’t

But looking at the list and the descriptions of the rabbis and their accomplishments is a very enlightening and somewhat infuriating exercise. Aside from Rabbi Hier and Rabbi Cooper, who are not rabbis of congregations or schools and whose work is mostly outside the orthodox world, there are only two (maybe three) rabbis on the list that are to right wing of the spectrum of orthodox Judaism. They are Rabbi Herschel Schachter and Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. Clearly, these rabbis are very influential. There is no disputing that.

The blurbs beside the top rabbis describe their contributions to society. The accolades are varied but are all somewhat positive. The two exceptions to this were Rabbi Schachter and Reb Shmuel. Their blurbs are far from complimentary.

Rabbi Schachter (emphasis mine):

Considered one of the few living sages for his sweeping expertise in Talmud and a beloved teacher by many, Schachter is widely thought to have pushed Yeshiva University to the right religiously, socially, and politically. He is against various forms of modernity in the name of preserving rigorous Halacha (Jewish law), opposing organ donation for brain death, not recognizing female prayer groups, and resisting the initiatives of his fellow YU alum Avi Weiss (#11) to foster women as spiritual leaders. Schachter is a dominant, intimidating force behind the RCA (see Goldin, #16), but his sense of humor was glimpsed this year when he made a brief cameo appearance in one of the hip Maccabeats’ viral music videos.

Shorter version: Rabbi Schachter is a bully who opposes the things that we find important. He is on this list because he is good at keeping orthodox Jews as backward as can be.

Reb Shmuel (emphasis mine):

The vice president of the Haredi umbrella organization, Agudath Israel of America’s Supreme Council of Rabbinic Sages, Kamenetsky has enormous sway when it comes to the official Haredi position on social and political issues or halachic questions. Last fall he urged the rabbinate to sign a “Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality,” which advocates “reparative therapy,” and last July, while the tragic disappearance of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky was in its second day in Brooklyn, he said that sexual abuse should be reported not to the police but to a rabbi, who would then decide whether to call the cops. (After an uproar, he softened this position.) The dean of the Talmudical Yeshiva in Philadelphia, Kamenetsky is one of the most esteemed gedolim—arbiters of Jewish law in the ultra-Orthodox world.

Again, Reb Shmuel’s value is only in his influence as maintaining the silly ways of orthodoxy.

Now, whether you or I agree with these positions is not the issue here. The issue is that achievement in our world is recognized by lack of progressiveness. That Newsweek chooses to portray orthodox Judaisim in this light is disturbing.

But where are the right wing orthodox rabbis who do positive things for the global community and don’t just work hard to prevent change? Do they exist and get ignored? Or do they not exist?

I think they exist. But I don’t think they are portrayed as the heroes of our community by insiders or by outsiders. The leaders of the Jewish community have become roshei yeshiva. They are not even rabbis of congregations. They are rabbis of institutions of higher learning. It is their job to protect our Torah institutions. But the rabbis out there in the shuls are doing other things. They are perhaps pushing the envelope and perhaps they are also building communities and making positive change. But the reality is that our leaders are the leaders of the yeshiva. Their “building” is internal. The yeshivas are packed with young men studying Torah. That is a great accomplishment. Newsweek doesn’t mention that. It only mentions the negative.

But there is a point here that relates to our communities. The rabbis of the adults and the families of our community get less respect and have less clout in orthodox Judaism than ever before. Newsweek sees it. We see it. Is it better for us or worse for us?

Like everything, we take the good with the bad. But we must recognize that orthodox Judaism seems to be starving for rabbinic leadership outside the yeshiva. Maybe that will get some of our best and most influential rabbis who are “building” on the outside and not just the rabbis who are “protecting” on the list.

Link: The Daily Beast

James Cameron is Impressed with the Universe

rabbifink — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:16:50 +0000

This week, James Cameron went boldly where no one had gone before, alone. Fifty years ago a pair of scientists plunged to the deepest part of the ocean. They went together. They had each other. But Cameron went alone. That is a completely different experience.

When one is alone, there is no noise, no distractions, just oneness with whatever one is experiencing. Cameron’s experience in the depths is different than the previous mission half a century ago. He did it alone. The voices inside his head spoke to him and there was no one there to distract him.

Alone, Cameron saw and experienced things that almost no one has ever seen. He saw wonders of the universe that have been hidden out of sight virtually forever. The voyage must have been magical.

As expected, Cameron was asked about the journey that took him nearly 7 miles below the surface. His response:

“There had to be a moment where I just stopped and just took it in and said ‘This is where I am, I’m at the bottom of the ocean, the deepest place in the world and what does that mean?

I just sat there looking out the window, looking out at this kind of barren, desolate, lunar plain and appreciate it.”

Appreciation. That is the true and stark emotion that Cameron felt during his expedition. The world is so intricate and complex. Many parts of it are so distant and unreachable. By going where he went, Cameron unlocked a bit of the mystery of our world. Experiencing that alone gave him time and space to digest those awesome moments and truly appreciate them.

Cameron also asks an important question about his time in the abyss: “What does that mean?”

For an atheist it might mean nothing. Or it might mean something. Who knows?

But for us, it means something very important. Our world and its glorious detail is part of a creation that humbles us with its impressiveness. What are we do to do when we are inspired by our universe? What is the universe telling us?

Maimonides writes that the way for one to come to love God is to appreciate our incredible universe. The fingerprints of God are all over nature. The beauty of our world is inspiring. The problem is that most of us are too distracted to notice it. Sometimes it takes a long journey to the most remote place without any distractions to turn our minds on to our world.

James Cameron is an atheist. His experience did not bring him to love God because he doesn’t believe that God exists. But we can all learn from his reaction to what he saw and felt down there. For us believers, the more we turn ourselves on to our world, the greater our appreciation must be for God. Learning about the cosmos or marine life or chemistry or biology or physics are key elements to developing an appreciation for and love for God.

Sometimes we need to be reminded to lose the distractions. When we do, perhaps we will be lucky enough to hear the music of God’s universe singing to us its glorious song.

Link: CBS News

No related posts.

Richard Dawkins Urges Others to Ridicule and Show Contempt for Religion

rabbifink — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:12:11 +0000

At the Reason Rally last weekend Richard Dawkins plead with those in attendance to rid our world of religion. But it wasn’t enough to preach to the choir (hehe) and reaffirm their atheist beliefs. Dawkins urged the 20,000 in attendance to ridicule religion and show contempt for religion.

This is further than previous calls to action by atheists. It used to be enough to challenge believers to debate, publish books and articles, but now Dawkins wants atheists to verbally attack religious people. Let me get right out and say it, this is really really bad idea.

Now, I do sympathize with many of the ideas that Dawkins teaches. I think that politics and government policy should not be decided by religious beliefs. This is not because I think religious beliefs are inherently bad or wrong, in fact, I am in favor of many religious beliefs. I am a religious person myself. I think religion can and should play a strong an important role in our lives. But I don’t think it is fair or correct for one particular religion to rule our thinking and public policy. Every religion has mutually exclusive beliefs and all religious beliefs are exclusive of atheist beliefs. Our government should not favor one over the other. On this, Dawkins and I somewhat agree.

But now Dawkins is pushing harder. He is no longer simply concerned with eliminating religious beliefs from government, he wants to eliminate religion. Period. Not only does he want to eliminate religion but he wants atheists to be confrontational and to mock religious people.

There are a few problems with this proposal.

First of all, in my experience very little comes from confrontation. Most people reinforce their beliefs when confronted or ridiculed.

Second of all, if the platform of atheist is reason and rationality then mocking others hardly reinforces that notion. Stick to your principles, don’t resort to bully tactics.

Third of all (and most importantly), there is nothing wrong with people holding religious beliefs! People are free to believe as they choose. Several studies and talks discuss the importance of religion in people’s lives even if it would be shown to be false! The issue is not whether people should believe in God or hold religious beliefs. The issue is whether those beliefs should play a prominent role in a melting-pot society. There are excellent arguments to be made on both sides of that issue. Ridicule is not an argument.

Frankly, I am disappointed by this development. Hopefully, atheists and believers can come together to create the best possible society for everyone; a world free of mockery and ridicule.

Link: USA Today

The New American Haggadah | Book Review

rabbifink — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:05:19 +0000

I was intrigued by an article in the New York Times about the New American Haggadah so I bought a copy. I thought the name was a tad odd but then Apple called their third generation iPad the “New iPad” so maybe it’s en vogue to just name things by adding the word new in front of an obvious name. What do I know?

Before I even cracked the New American Haggadah open I had a basic idea of what to expect. The New American Haggadah is designed to be an avant garde hagaddah. It is artistic in an almost postmodern way, it is typographically pleasing, the commentary is meant to inspire American Jews, and it was not orthodox. The commentary was written by Jeffrey Goldberg, Lemony Snicket, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, and Nathaniel Deutsch. The translation was done by Nathan Englander. The hagaddah was edited by Jonathan Safran Foer.

One of the things I was looking for in the New American Haggadah was whether it would be acceptable to orthodox Jews. Was there anything that would offend the orthodox Jewish adherence to halacha and general worldview? Another thing I wondered was if the commentary was any good without considering the blood pressure of orthodox Jews. The last thing I wanted to see about the New American Haggadah was if I would enjoy its presentation of the haggadah and Seder experience.

So on Shabbos afternoon I read through the whole thing. The New American Haggadah has three basic functions. There is the text of the haggadah in the original Hebrew plus a contemporary English translation. There is a running timeline of Jewish history with a focus on Passover, that is completely independent of the hagaddah and Passover narrative that runs through the haggadah. There is also a collection of essays and food for thought during the highlights of the haggadah. Throughout the haggadah, instructions and laws are outlined and they are accurate enough. The specific amounts of the portions is not precise. They are not wrong. They are just vague.

My impressions of the text and translation is overwhelmingly positive. The text is true to the orthodox Jewish tradition. This was reassuring. I didn’t know what to expect, but since the Seder has taken on many different iterations throughout modernity, I had a healthy concern that the text would be different than what I was used to. Fortunately, this is not an issue at all.

My next area of concern was the translation. I must say that I was thoroughly impressed with the translation as well. It is a combination of beautiful English, devotion to tradition, and appropriate modern adjustments. One novel translation was in the response to the Wicked Son. The New American Haggadah translates this section by saying (emphasis mine) “…And by divorcing himself from the community he denies our very essence. Moreover, you must blunt the bite of his words, by telling him…” This is not the exact translation that most orthodox Jews would use, but it is true to the text and insightful. A second example of a novel translation is found in “V’Hi She’amda”. The New American Haggadah adds a poetic nuance in “For it was not one alone who stood over us, a heel on our necks, bent on our annihilation…” I found that one to be a nice touch. One last thing that stuck out was the adjustment from the oft used “simple son” to the “artless son”. This is perhaps no better than “simple” but “simple” horribly simplistic as well. The New American Haggadah adds one section of text that I had not seen previously. At the time that we fill the “fifth cup” and open the door for Shfoch Chamascha, the New American Haggadah adds a couple of verses from Tanach about Elijah the Prophet. I had not seen that before. It offends me, but only slightly, because the idea that Elijah the Prophet visits us when we open the door for Shfoch Chamascha is of questionable vintage and certainly not universally held. All in all, the text and translations were outstanding.

The most problematic part of the New American Haggadah for orthodox Jews is the “timeline”. It is highly academic and may, at times, offend orthodox sensibilities. Further, its focus on secular Jewish accomplishments are of little to no value to most orthodox Jewish Seders. One would be hard pressed to actually find anything that would be called “kefira” in the timeline, but I can see it being a source of discomfort for many orthodox Jews. I liked most of it.

As for the commentary, it was a lot better than I expected. The gist of the commentary could best be described as a fresh, relevant commentary. It is heavy on take-away lessons that apply in 2012 and light on rabbinic interpretation. However the rabbis of the Talmud and beyond do make several appearances.

If I had to point to its biggest flaw, I would say that at times it is too irreverent of God. Orthodox Jews will cringe at a few of the essays because they paint a picture of God that is not completely in sync with the contemporary orthodox Jewish views of God and His role in the world.

Still, many of the essays portray excellent ideas written in excellent prose that will surely spur a discussion of the haggadah that is familiar to orthodox Jews. For example, speaking of being “chosen”, one essay proclaims “Chosenness can sometimes feel like loneliness; a burden. Perhaps it is for this reason, the haggadah reminds us that our chosenness is an expression of love and a source for rejoicing.” Sounds like something an orthodox rabbi would say. Commenting on our statement that “today we are slaves” the New American Haggadah asks the obvious question: But we are not slaves today? And answers that our impoverishment is our inability to do all the good that we want to do in our lives. If I told you that was from R’ Yisrael Salanter, you would believe me. But it is not. It is from the New American Haggadah. Another insight that sounds like a classic is the proposal that the plague that kills all the firstborns of Egypt is a “measure for measure” for the Egyptian decree to drown all the baby boys into the Nile. I am sure that others have said this as well. The point is that the commentary sometimes takes on the persona of the traditional orthodox Jewish commentators. There are other nice little “vorts” sprinkled throughout the commentary. Like the parallel between the hiding of the Afikomen and the hiding of Moshe as a baby that led to our salvation.

But there are two other kinds of commentary in the New American Haggadah that are bound to rankle some orthodox Jewish sensibilities. One is justified and the other might not be. There are a very small number of essays that may be objectively problematic. For example, one essay proposes that just like us, sometimes God forgets about people other than Himself. Ouch. But other than that, the irreverence and nonchalant tone about God and the Passover story are rarely objectively offensive, if at all.

The most common form of commentary in the New American Haggadah is an anathema to most orthodox Jewish Seders, I think. That is, an attempt to take the lessons of the Seder and apply them to society at large, particularly, with a Tikkun Olam flavor. Personally, I think orthodox Jews should not recoil at the mere mention of Tikkun Olam, but many do. For example, one essay remarks that Shifra and Puah are the first examples of “civil disobedience”. This is a great point and definitely something to think about. However, few orthodox Jews will find meaning in spending precious moments at the Seder talking about it. Another essay tells a great story about Palestinian prisoners eating matzah on Passover because that is what they were served and invites questions about prison, the Intifada, and Israel. One humorous comparison pits Elijah the Prophet against Santa Claus. Both “visit” homes but Santa is forced to go through the Chimney. We stand up and open the door for Elijah. Again, a great conversation starter, but not the kind of conversation that one would expect at an orthodox Jewish Seder. But then again, maybe it should be. Our Seders are so focused on the past and interpretations from the past. The New American Haggadah has some great ways to bring the discussion into 2012 and that might be a good thing for some orthodox Jewish Seders.

In general, the preference of orthodox Jews is to quote rabbis and Torah scholars at the Seder. But as Maimonides famously said,”Hear truth from whoever says it“, I see nothing wrong with including the thoughts and ideas of a few American Jews who are not rabbis or even orthodox.

My only real critique is that in an attempt to be cool and hip, the New American Haggadah makes you turn the book on its side to read the essays and on its other side to read the timeline. Maybe I just don’t get it. But it is odd and quite annoying. I don’t see how it enhances the experience.

The verdict is that the New American Haggadah is acceptable for orthodox Jews. It has some things to offer that will undoubtably improve your orthodox Jewish Seder. It has other things that will get ignored, but that may not be for the best. Some parts should be ignored, and that is okay too. I recommend the New American Haggadah for most orthodox Jewish readers. If you want to avoid the most problematic essay skip the one that starts “God. who supposedly knows everything,”. Otherwise, to my eyes, the rest of the New American Haggadah is completely safe. It may seem strange to discuss some of the things that are in the New American Haggadah, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong or a waste of time.

Buy the haggadah here: Amazon

Modesty Gone Awry

rabbifink — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:15:48 +0000

An interesting article about modesty has been making its rounds. The author grew up in an environment where she was required to dress very modestly. She wore clothes the would not attract attention and was conscious of her appearance at all times. Unfortunately, her story took a sad turn when she developed an eating disorder in college. The point of the article is that modesty gave her the eating disorder.

It almost sounds like she could have grown up in one of many orthodox Jewish communities.

However the author is not Jewish. She was raised in a religious community that practices Branhamism and is known as “The Message of the Hour”. I believe this a key to establishing the difference between what her experience was with modesty and our modesty ideals.

The author writes that she was taught that modesty is an element of submitting to man’s world. She must be vigilant not to arouse a man under any circumstance. She was led to believe that she was always on display and that any slight furtive movement could be one that ruins her. She was even told as much by members of her community on more than one occasion. In her view, modesty meant she was always on display to be judged by men. She felt like she was to be hidden behind a curtain.

Some people have commented that this is the wrong way to approach modesty and she was taught about modesty incorrectly.

So I did some research (by research, I mean I went to Wikipedia) and it seems that she was instilled with the messages of Branhamism as they are meant to be understood. See this paragraph on modesty:

Message believers hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible’s references to the role of women. Women are not allowed to preach or teach (1 Timothy 2:12) although they may testify, teach Sunday School, pray aloud, and operate the vocal gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:10). Wives are taught to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1) and that they should have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:15). Divorce and remarriage is permitted for men “for the cause of fornication” (Matthew 5:31-32) but not for women.[34] (“Fornication” is defined as “undisclosed pre-marital sexual intercourse” by most groups, although some also include adultery as a just cause). Women are expected to dress “modestly” which means avoiding tight or revealing clothing as well as any garment that “pertaineth unto a man” (Deuteronomy 22:5), such as pants, shorts, slacks, overalls, etc.[35] Branham’s followers believe that using makeup is wrong because the only woman in the Bible who painted her face was Jezebel (2 Kings 9:30).

So, was it so farfetched that the author of the article understood the meaning of modesty as she did? I don’t think so. Using Biblical narratives as the model of modesty is bound to make modern women feel like the ancients. That is the point.

I think it is important for our community to recognize that there are unhealthy ways of preaching modesty. They could lead to disastrous results. It could lead to eating disorders, poor self-image, marital issues, obsessive compulsive disorder, and many other social or emotional problems. The lesson of the article is not to scrap modesty. It is to learn how not to impart it to our students and children.

I think the healthiest way to teach modesty is for it to be balanced and part of a broader approach to religious life. It cannot be the most important thing. It cannot be the thing by which we judge and are judged. It must be a personal desire to be comfortable and confident in who we are that we don’t feel the social pressure to dress provocatively. It would be even better if we could find a way out of the rigid social norms that now plague orthodox Jewish modesty. Where fitting in is equated with modesty and Tznius Inflation raises the stakes every few months. In a different time, a posek might have even been willing to allow modest pants to be worn seeing as they are not “for men” nor are they immodest. But we live in an orphaned generation bereft of halachic innovation. And even if a posek was willing to take a step out of the box, the public would likely reject it. This is just an unfortunate reality of our time.

At the very least, we should be sure to educate our community about the harms of eating disorders and other social problems associated with self-image. Although it may unintentional, placing such emphasis on the way we look and the way we dress, even for religious reasons, can create problems far worse than showing too much skin.

Link: Role Reboot

Rav Kook on Sacrifices and Eating Meat

rabbifink — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:13:34 +0000

Following the strident discussion (mostly on Facebook and Twitter) about the morality of eating meat, (See: The NY Times Ethicist Wants to Know Why You Eat Meat) I thought it appropriate to mention the radical opinion of Rav Avraham Isaac Kook on the future of animal sacrifice. This is especially appropriate this week as we begin the book of Leviticus, where we learn all about the sacrifices brought in the Tabernacle and Temple. Many of these sacrifices were meat.

Some of the commenters questioned how we could possibly posit that eating meat is unethical if the Torah gives us license and sometimes obligations to eat meat. Rav Kook himself believed that the world was heading toward a time where everyone was vegetarian. He held that eating animals was caused by a defect in our souls and that as our souls became more perfect, the desire for meat would disappear.

Clearly, he held that vegetarianism was a messianic, or at least futuristic ideal. In fact he wrote a book on the subject and some of his most ardent followers were vegetarians.

Perhaps, because he held that eating meat was an unfortunate reality as opposed to an ideal, he also held that the future Temple would not have animal sacrifices. Rav Kook believed that future sacrifices would be vegetarian. There would be bread, matzah, and perhaps other vegetable substitutes for animal sacrifices.

How would this be implemented? Does the Torah not command us to bring animal sacrifices? We are not allowed to annul a commandment in the Torah!

Rav Kook proposes that a new Beis Din HaGadol would interpret Torah using new drashos and logic to prove that the Torah would not want us to bring animal sacrifices in a time where they would considered abhorrent. One clever idea (of many) he mentions is that a sacrifice must be brought “lirtzonchem” – by your own free will. So the Talmud say that if someone does not want to bring a sacrifice, but he is supposed to bring one, the court can pressure him until he says “I want to”. But in future times, says Rav Kook, no one will every cave to the pressure! They will never be able to bring a sacrifice “lirtzonchem”, ergo, animal sacrifices will be annulled.

This is all a quick and dirty summary of a masterful article on Seforim Blog.

Read it here: Seforim Blog

One more interesting note. Ibn Caspi, a rishon, says even now (which was 1000 years ago), it is preferable to be vegetarian in the same way that Adam was before he sinned because animals are very similar [anatomically] to humans. Rambam also suggests eating meat sparingly in Hilchos Deyos.

The NY Times Ethicist Wants to Know Why You Eat Meat

rabbifink — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:29:45 +0000

Crowdsourcing is the new way to do research. Need help answering a question? Ask your friends on Facebook or Twitter! Everyone is doing it. Even Rabbi Slifkin is crowdsourcing for his animal encyclopedia. (Give him a hand if you can…)

The NY Times Ethicist is also crowdsourcing. The Ethicist wants to hear the strongest case for eating meat. What right does a human being have to kill and eat a living animal?

Truthfully, this is a great question. I have thought about this before and believe that I have come to an important conclusion.

Some of you might think this is a ridiculous question. If you fall under this category, you are probably a religious person. That’s because some religious people don’t need a separate justification for eating meat.

For example, in Judaism, built into the system is the idea that there is a Creator. The Creator made a world with a hierarchy. The lower levels on the hierarchy were created to help the higher levels achieve perfection in this world. So plants and animals were created specifically so that they can help man become better people. The food, clothing, and shelter they provide are ours to enjoy responsibly. We are not permitted to waste or abuse other creations, but we are supposed to use them appropriately to aid us in living our lives. If they are used properly, we are giving them a greater purpose than they would have had if they were not used at all.

It goes one level deeper. One of the most important aspects of the Flood Story is that Noah saved the animals. It’s not just that he survived, but he survived along with the animals. According to some sources, until Noah saved the animals from the Flood, one was not allowed to kill for meat. If an animal was found dead, it could be eaten. Only once the animals were indebted to Noah was he permitted to kill them to eat their meat, responsibly This also may help explain why Noah saved 7 (or 7 pairs) of kosher animals. Their debt is greater than the other animals and therefore we are given permission to eat them. The other animals can only be used for non-food benefits.

This is very important. It means that without a moral imperative from God, there is no right to kill animals. It also means that when we do kill animals it must be done responsibly.

The problem arises for those who do not have moral code from a Creator. Because then, morality is based on what our reasoning. I don’t believe I have seen a rational argument that explains why it is okay to kill animals to eat them. The Ethicist is right. What is the justification for an atheist to eat meat? Is it just “tradition”? That’s weak. Is it because we are stronger and more advanced? Is that really a justification? I am very curious to see what kind of responses are submitted. Personally, I think it is impossible to ethically justify eating meat if you don’t believe in God. But I am anxious to see if I can be persuaded that I am wrong.

If you have any great ideas, share them with us and send them to The Ethicist.

Link: NY Times

How to Solve the Shidduch Crisis WITHOUT Advocating for a Bunch of Nose Jobs

rabbifink — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:02:27 +0000

The reactions are pouring in, fast and furious. With an emphasis on furious. Noted author and trailblazer Yitta Halberstam wrote what might be the most universally offensive article about shidduchim that the world has ever seen.

Ms. Halberstam is best known for co-authoring the “Small Miracles” series of books. She was also featured in an article in the NY Times about orthodox Jewish women breaking gender boundaries (something Deborah Feldman could have benefited from). This weekend, however, she set off a “small firestorm” and pushed gender equality backward by a couple generations.

The Jewish Press published an article penned by Ms. Halberstam. If you have not yet read the article, please click here and read Purim and the Tyranny of Beauty, then come back here.

Caveat: It is possible that this article is satire. A Purim joke. If it is, then the joke is on me and all the people who missed the joke. If anyone knows with certainty that this article is or is not satire please let us all in on the joke. Thanks. Either way, this is a superb example of something called Poe’s Law. Even if it is satire, the article raises real issues that are analyzed in this post.

The article is so bad that I am not even going to attempt to address everything in there. For the sake of brevity, just assume that whatever raised your eyebrows and blood pressure, did the same to thousands of others. There are a few areas of discussion that I think are particularly important to cover.

First, the details. Let’s just get straight to it. Ms. Halberstam is actually suggesting that young women undergo elective surgery to fix their bodies. Yes. If a girl is not married in her early 20′s it’s probably because her nose is too big. Does it get any more superficial than that? It does not.

Let me count the ways that this is offensive and just plain wrong. Isn’t one of the points of dating for marriage via the shidduch system to avoid the superficiality of dating purely based on looks? Where do these guys come off being so picky about looks? Why are we playing into this stupidity? Don’t the Tzitz Eliezer and R’ Shlomo Zalman prohibit elective surgery purely for the sake of beauty? (Yes, I know there are others who permit it. But since when is Ms. Halberstam qualified to decide this matter of dispute between the poskim?!) Does Ms. Halberstam know that some people are happy with their looks and don’t think they should cow to social pressure to look a certain (superficial) way? I mean, seriously, say it out loud: “An orthodox Jewish woman is advocating plastic surgery to improve normal girls’ appearances”. Does this sound right to you?

Another detail. The girls who came to this meeting are an excellent case study. As an aside, Ms. Halberstam embarrasses them. She calls many of them plain-looking. This is not very nice. And it’s also very superficial. The whole point of meeting people in person is to get to know them and not make snap judgments based on their appearance. Ms. Halberstam fails at this. Miserably.

Then there are the girls. Why, in fact, didn’t they wear make-up? I venture to guess it is because of their Bais Yaakov education. In that world, cosmetics are often portrayed as the Yetzer Hara. They are to be avoided at all costs. The ones who do wear a little make-up are the “modern” girls. So is it any wonder that they don’t just transform from asexual teens to young women in touch with their femininity? Hardly. A similar problem, that is far more serious, occurs after marriage. It is very difficult for the “good girls” to adjust from complete insularity from sexuality to a healthy marriage. I bet that most of the girls at the meeting didn’t want the prospective mothers in law to think they were “loose” by charedi standards. I think if the girls were given more leeway in high school and “looking good” was not the work of the devil, there might be less reluctance to wearing make-up at a meeting of women.

The most important discussion about this article is the big picture. The current yeshivish shidduch system is a hybrid system. It is a combination of the almost arranged marriages of the most insular communities of the past and the common dating system of the West. In the hybrid system the parents vet potential mates, most of whom they do not know, and then the young adults go on a sufficient number of dates and if all goes well they get engaged.

There are advantages to this system. It avoids a lot of heartache and also the time spent trying to meet appropriate people. I used to think the system was the best possible system. And when it works, it just might be. But we are now seeing what happens when it doesn’t work.

What is happening now is best compared to “Crony Capitalism”. There are “haves” who get tons of girls recommended to them and there are “have nots” who sit around praying for a call. The “haves” get their choice of hundreds of prospective girls who stay the same age no matter how old he gets. The “have nots” try to find a match from the reject pile. Not to mention the levels of protexia and shmearing required to get a girl’s name into the hands of a sought after guy.

The girls are left with no leverage. They cannot look for a guy. The system requires that the guy choose the girl. And by guy, I mean the guy’s mother. There is almost never a list of guys waiting for a “yes” from a girl.

This is not a minor issue. Any system where the “haves” are spoiled by their riches will become corrupt. In this case, the corruption is in the narcissism of the boys (really their mothers). They become obsessed with getting the perfect match because they can. This obsession leads to lists, résumés, and many of the problems we are facing today.

Another issue is the attempt to adopt the model of almost arranged marriages. I am suspicious that when this was done in the shtetl, the parents knew the prospective match. They knew each other from around town. They knew their children well and they knew the other young men and women as well. In this kind of environment parental input is not only valid, it can be extremely useful.

But in our world, where young men study in yeshiva and young women study in seminary (and usually change a lot of their ideas in that year) and potential matches are made from across the globe, parental input no longer means what it used to mean. It is even possible, or likely, that parental input could be harmful. They may not know their children as well as they think they do. And that’s okay. But when the decision maker for whom to date is not on the same page as the decision maker for whom to marry, the results can be uneven or worse, catastrophic. Further, parents love their children. A lot. They will take the time to vet hundreds of potential mates to a degree that no one would dream of doing for their self. Parents are too dedicated. In this case I think it turns into a flaw.

I think, a limited parental involvement is wise, but parent overlords are becoming a bigger problem. But I think that is also a symptom of a larger problem. Many orthodox young couples are supported by their parents and in-laws. Since the parents have such a stake in the outcome, they are given a larger role. Perhaps if marriage was something that came after financial independence, parents would have a lesser role. And I think that would be a good thing.

You might ask how in the world young men and women will get married if their mommies are not taking care of all the work. There are two answers. First, young men will date more willingly without all the superficial vetting. They don’t care about all that stuff nearly as much as their parents. So the logjam will loosen. Dates will happen more freely. Idiotic details won’t make or break a potential date. I think this would help a lot.

But the best solution remains the proposal by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky in the Jewish Press last summer. In What We Can Learn From Chazal About Dating, Rabbi Pruzansky suggests social opportunities for young singles to meet each other. This will increase their pool of friends from one gender to two. I think it is obvious that things will sort themselves out from there. This should be the system. In this future world, people get to know each other in a relaxed setting. There are no résumés, no built-in advantage for the guys, no proud mothers turning away the “riffraff”, no 180 degree turn from avoiding the other gender to cultivated a loving relationship with the other gender on demand, and as Rabbi Pruzansky so eloquently says, it is living by the dicta of Chazal.

I hope it becomes the yeshivish system before long. If it does, hopefully we will save our daughters from the horrors of self-image obsession that turn into eating disorders and elective surgery before one can buy a beer.

Link: The Jewish Press

Mourning Responsibly With Our Brothers and Sisters in France

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:12:38 +0000

Tragedy struck the French Jewish community today. An unidentified gunman shot several people outside a Jewish school. When Jewish people are suffering anywhere in the world, Jews all over the rest of the world suffer with them. It is a great testament to our unity and sense of camaraderie that we can feel the pain of our Jewish brethren though we have never met.

Death, especially sudden death, inflicts a wound upon the survivors. When a fellow Jew is killed we are all survivors. For now, the pain is being channeled into grief and connection. Jews all over the world are expressing their solidarity and love for the victims, their families, and the entire French Jewish community.

When Jews are killed, another reasonable reaction is to immediately assume that anti-Semitism is a factor. This is turn, gets channeled into fervent Zionism, and sometimes translates into sympathy for movements like the JDL. I can understand these sentiments. With our collective history, it is absolutely a natural reaction.

With regard to this recent tragedy, there is no evidence of ant-Semitism. Complicating matters further is the forensic evidence that shows that other shootings in the area in the last few days were committed using the same weapon. The other shootings targeted French paratroopers of non-Jewish ethnicity. The modus operandi was also the same. A man on a motorcycle fired shots and then sped away.

To my untrained mind, it seems that the same man is the shooter. If that is the case, it is even harder to see anti-Semitism in today’s horrible tragedy.

I think it is slightly irresponsible to blame anti-Semitism when there is none. I understand that it is a natural reaction. But anti-Semitism cannot be presumed in any and every instance where Jewish people are killed. There may turn out to be anti-Semitism in this case. But at this point, I can’t see how that can be assumed.

Also, slightly cringeworthy is the “may God avenge their blood” sentiment. We can mourn and express pain without being bloodthirsty in our expressions.

In the meantime, let us mourn responsibly. Let us mourn these deaths as one. We are in a deep collective pain. Let us channel that pain to improving the world and increasing love and kindness in the world to properly avenge the death of our brothers and sister in France.

May their memories be for a blessing.

Link: Fox News

Excellent Article in Tablet About Modesty and Contemporary Orthodox Judaism

rabbifink — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:26:09 +0000

(Also posted on DovBear: Tznius Inflation)

I read this excellent article on Tablet today. It’s a great article for a lot of reasons. For me, the best part of the article is that I agree with almost every word! (Half kidding.) For the purposes of this post I will assume you have also read the article. Click here: Tablet Magazine, read the article and come back when you are done.

The writer, a young woman studying at Stern College, comes from a more insular background than the Yeshiva University environment she now associates with. Her accounts of life in the more insular community are accurate and I myself have experienced many of the same sentiments first hand. I have heard of almost all the rest of them second hand.

The single most important indicator of religious piety has become modesty. If that sounds ironic, it is because it is. Real modesty is to shift the focus from the external to the internal. The obsession with modesty has turned it into the very opposite of modesty.

I recently heard that a woman was “off the derech”. The proof was that she was seen in pants and only covering most of her hair with a hat. Why is that the deciding factor? And why are we talking about it?

Tznius has also turned into an arms race. The more stringent we can be with our children and communities, the more safe we feel in our observance. I don’t need to tell tales or name names, but my observation has been that the standards have increased to less reasonable levels in my own lifetime. Women being blurred out of photos, advertisements telling women to hide on Purim, summer camps for young children with only girls present are expected to have strict dress codes are all recent examples that I have seen of tznius inflation.

The article expresses an almost hesitant appreciation for secular wisdom and art. That is unfortunate but understandable. In the yeshiva world, beauty is found in Judaism and Torah. Searching for beauty and wisdom elsewhere is discouraged and frowned upon. I don’t think this is the way of truth. Our great Torah giants from almost all previous generations venerated all wisdom. We should as well.

I hope the article goes viral. I hope everyone reads the article. The insular community should see how it is perceived by those who leave it but remain true to orthodox Judaism. In fact, I wish the YU style community and yeshivish community could somehow bridge the gap and find more common ground. I see YU shifting to the right, but almost as if to one-up them, the more insular community has taken its own turn to the right. If the communal standards were less rigid, I think we would find that there is beauty in both ways of life. But it can be hard to see the beauty when it feels to many as if beauty must be repressed and hidden.

Great article Avital. I hope to read more of your writing in the future!

Link: Tablet