Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » chasidic

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.

Turning the Page: Fixing Marriage and Custody in the Ultra-Orthodox Community

rabbifink — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:33:54 +0000

A lot of people seem to agree that the chasidic system (maybe even the charedi system as well) of marriage and dating needs some updating. There is also a consensus that using religion as a weapon to keep people in the fold is wrong. Most people also think that mothers should have custody of their children even if they are not religious and the father is religious.

Is there any hope that the charedi and chasidic worlds can adapt and adjust to fix these problems?

From what I am hearing, the answer is yes. Several commenters on the blog and Facebook have shared encouraging developments. It seems they are open to new ideas. In this spirit, allow me to make a few suggestions. Keep in mind, these are suggestions for insular communities. I prefer non-insular communities in general. But in the meantime, here is some advice that can be implemented within the insular communities.

First, some definitions:

Chasidic community: An insular community where the entire community is expected to conform to one way of religious life.

Chasidic dating: Parents arrange meeting between two 17-18 year olds. They meet for 30 minutes. They decline or agree to see each other again. The second date seals the deal.

Charedi community: A non-chasidic community that tries to reduce engagement with the outside world and prefers a lifestyle of exclusive Torah study over a career.

Charedi dating: Parents arrange a meeting between a preferably 18-19 year old girl and a 22-23 year old boy. They meet for 3-4 hours between 4-8 times. They get engaged and see each other a few times before the wedding 2 months later.

Dating

No one under the age of 19 should be considered for a shidduch. They are off limits. Couples should date for no fewer than 1 month and see each other a minimum of 10 times before getting engaged. Dates should be fun, encourage conversation, the conversations should include things like how excited one is about religion and if there are things that they question.

Engagements should last 3 months. The couple should see each other no less than once every two weeks. When they see one another they should have fun and enjoy each other’s company. They should have at least a preliminary conversation about intimacy before the wedding night. The teachers who will explain to them how “things work” should be extremely highly qualified and be as liberal as the community allows.

Children

Couples should be advised on matters of family planning. This is not the place to go to far into detail. But if the children of the couple will be a burden on the community, they might need to ask a shyla before having children, not vice versa. Further, when a couple has children too quickly, it can stunt the development of their relationship which is barely in its infancy after a contracted dating period and quick marriage.

When Things Go Wrong

During a marriage, one spouse may prefer a more or less religious lifestyle. This should not be immediate grounds for divorce. The goal should be happiness for the couple and keeping the family together. Men should not be defined by the way their wives act and women should not be defined by the way their husbands act. Religious compatibility does not need to be the deciding factor in marriage. I know couples who are very happy and they each observe to different degrees. This should be acceptable.

If the couple is incompatible religiously and incompatible in general a divorce should be sought. The get should not be withheld at all. The couple should strive for a custody agreement that is mutually agreeable. If they cannot agree, the secular courts should decide it. A Beis Din is not the place to decide custody matters when one parent is more religious than the other. It is inherently unfair. The couple better try their best to agree because the courts may decide to create a system that neither party likes.

These are some of my thoughts and ideas. I don’t imagine that they will solve all the problems. Nor do I imagine that any system is perfect. But I do believe that not tweaking the system will cause it to collapse. Albert Einstein said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

We want different results. We want better results. Perhaps these suggestions can help just a bit.

I am open to any ideas you have. Remember we are trying to maintain the basic standards of the chasidic and charedi communities. Major overhauls are a non-starter.

Unorthodox | Book Review (and analysis)

rabbifink — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:01:18 +0000

I read Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. It is unorthodox. It is a rejection. But I did not find it scandalous. Not at all.

There is so much about this book that needs to be discussed. Let’s get a bit of insignificant criticism out of the way. For starters, I found the writing decent. Not excellent. It got better as the book progressed, but the early chapters were tedious in my opinion. The writing is over-descriptive to a fault. Too many sentences have too many adjectives and adverbs. The book doesn’t allow the reader any imagination. There’s no room for the reader to breath. It’s sensory overload. It’s almost like the author is trying too hard to prove herself as a good writer. Personally, I found it quite annoying.

The story is unremarkable. Shorter version of the book: Girl raised by her grandparents because her mother is a lesbian who left the community and her father is mentally ill has high anxiety and feels constrained by the limiting lifestyle of her community eventually leaves the community. It’s not a story we haven’t heard before nor is it a story we will not hear again.

The truth is that anyone with high anxiety will not have an easy time in any tight-knit, insular community. It’s not really that chasidic Judaism didn’t work for Deborah. It’s that her difficult childhood and personality didn’t work well in the high pressure society of chasidic Judaism. She probably would have been fine in a more moderate form of orthodox Judaism. Unfortunately for her, she was born into extreme circumstances.

Honestly, there was nothing “scandalous” in the book. (I will address the one scandal that has been manufactured at the end of this post). In other words, the book, fairly accurately describes the life of a chasidic girl in Williamsburg. It is insular. Education is placed at a minimum. Marriage is the goal of childhood, motherhood is the goal of adulthood. This is no scandalous. This is fact.

There are in fact, renegade renegade mikva attendants. There are libido charged teenage boys who are inappropriate toward girls (and other boys). There are stories of talking fish. People did burn their wigs. Secular books are frowned upon. Superstitions are rampant. People gossip. Especially about young married couples. There is abuse and it is covered up. There is prejudice against members of other chasidic sects and certainly against non-chasidic Jews, especially modern orthodox Jews and Sephardic Jews. Strange tales like eating pig will make you vomit are told. These are just the expected social conventions of the insular chasidic community. Nothing to see here.

But are these items an indictment of the entire chasidic community? Certainly not. Bad people and dumb ideas exist everywhere. The biggest gripe I have is simply the imaginary principle that there are no bad people or dumb ideas in the community. There are and knowing there are goes a long way to fixing those people and ideas.

The book brought me to tears twice. For a sap like me, that is not a good showing. Hush made me cry a ton of times. Even Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels moved me to tears a bunch of times. Unorthodox was not an emotional book. The only moments for me were the birth of her child and the when she and her son come to grips with the fact that the unhappy, broken, marriage is over. That’s it. The rest felt a bit detached and unremarkable.

But I like to find social commentary and universal lessons in this kind of book and I think there are some important issues the book raises.

Deborah’s personality is to question and to learn. In her community this is a dangerous trait. Her first step off the path was learning Talmud. That’s an innocent curiosity in most orthodox communities, even for a girl. But Deborah had to hide it. She couldn’t ask questions about what she had learned. With this her rebellion began.

Although Deborah relates to her grandmother as a rebel. I don’t think she realized how special her grandfather was. At least, what is recorded in the book paints Zaidy as a good guy. He avoids the Satmar politics. He is willing to read a newspaper after 9/11. He doesn’t believe in superstition and stories like the talking fish in New Square. He is also a bit of a rebel. In my eyes, Zaidy is a reasonable guy throughout most of the book. What’s unfortunate is one negative portrayal made its way onto the book jacket. But other than that incident, he seems to be a good guy. I think that his independence of allegiance and thought are worthy of praise and if more of his neighbors were like him, I think many issues in the insular community would be mitigated.

Her shortlived marriage leaves many unanswered questions. I would have liked more details. She says they fight. About what? The book doesn’t elaborate. She talks about their neighbors in Airmont. I am from Monsey, I know those people. I would have liked more about that period of her life. The life of what has become known as a “Tuna Beigel”. They dress somewhat chasidic but are much more liberated. Why didn’t that lifestyle work for Deborah? These are areas of the book that feel rushed and unfinished.

My favorite part of the book was the twist of fate that began with a visit to a Kabbalist. He told Deborah that her number was “nine”. On 9/9/9 just after midnight, Deborah had a life-changing motor vehicle accident. She says that the Kabbalist was right. Her number was nine. Somehow, I don’t think that is what the Kabbalist had in mind. But it’s poetic justice that his words were used by Deborah to rationalize her departure from the community.

The overall “lesson” of the book, if there is one, is that her whole life, as a good Chasidic girl, Deborah was taught to trust her intellect over her impulse. She was supposed to use her knowledge of Jewish law and thought to guide her and not allow her emotions and passions. Her freedom came when she put her impulse ahead of her intellect. Judaism is really all about placing one’s intellect above their impulse. Everyone from Maimonides to Luzzato talks about this. The trick is to channel one’s impulse into positive, creative, useful activity. One is not required to suppress everything about one’s self. Rather, one is supposed to use the intellect to guide one’s passions and creativity. The goal is to use one’s personality to improve the world.

More balanced, moderate forms of orthodox Judaism provide a better framework for avoiding this damaging problem. Most careers and opportunities are available to orthodox Jews. There are a few exceptions. Perhaps it would be useful for the more moderate versions of orthodox Judaism to focus on this aspect of Judaism. Even better, if the more insular versions of orthodox Judaism like the chasidic sects mentioned in Unorthodox or the new insular communities in the non-chasidic world would allow these doors to be opened for their communities.

There is somewhat of a happy ending to the book, even for religious, orthodox Jews. Feldman says that she is still proud to be a Jew. In a different sense than before, but still, she is not a “self hating Jew” as some have claimed. This is a positive development in light of her difficulties with her community,

To close, allow me to address what has become the biggest controversy over this book: The murder cover-up.

Feldman tells the story of her brother-in-law calling their home and telling them that a heinous murder had just occurred in Kiryas Joel. He was personally there as a Hatzalah member and he claimed that there was a cover-up of the murder.

In the book, the story is told as a rumor. The book makes no claim as to whether or not there was a murder. The only claim being made is that this is what she was told. The point of the story is to illustrate that no one would have a hard time believing that a murder was covered up. As a reader, I am deeply troubled that a rumor like this is even possible. But I did not ever think that Feldman was reporting on something with facts to back it up. This was a record of a conversation that she recalled. The issues that remain are not whether or not there was a murder. It is a much more basic issue. Whether or not a murder could or would be covered up. I don’t think anyone would find this impossible, what with all the cover-ups of sex abuse, domestic abuse, fraud and corruption. That is the real issue. Whether or not she should have investigated and looked at police reports is irrelevant in my opinion. I don’t think Feldman thought that including this anecdote in the book would be as scandalous as it has become. I would have preferred if the she had made it clearer that the episode was rumor. But that is how I took it.

In my opinion, Unorthodox is a good book. Some are calling it a chillul Hashem. I find this ironic. Here is a woman who left the community. She tells her story. The story seems entirely plausible. But because she left it is chillul Hashem. Yet, when people who stay in the communirty commit crimes, acts of violence, are unseemly for other reasons, that is not a chillul Hashem. Quite the double standard if you ask me. All communities have what I call “abhorrent beliefs”. Is it a chillul Hashem when our abhorrent beliefs or practices are exposed truthfully? That’s a hard question to answer. More important is the challenge of dealing with them in a modern world. This will be addressed in a future post. Maybe even tomorrow. (Update: Posted - What to Do About Abhorrent Beliefs in Religions?).

Should you read Unorthodox? It’s interesting enough. Deborah’s story is unique enough to hold your interest. The inside information about the insular communities of Williamsburg and beyond is worth your time. If you are looking for high drama and massive scandals look elsewhere. It’s “good reading”. Not “can’t miss reading”.

Recommended for adults only.

Click here to purchase from Amazon: Unorthodox

Reputation Obsession: Taking Tov Shem M’Shemen Tov – A Good Name is Better Than Good Oil – to the Next Level

rabbifink — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:26:20 +0000

Third in a series of posts in reaction to the New Square situation. Part 1: Thoughts on Kiryas Joel: The Poorest City in America and Part 2: Attempted Murder in New Square: An Analysis.

There is a certain common sentiment amongst many minorities and ethnicities. It is commonly expressed as “bringing shame to the family”. Or sometimes it emerges as a threat “what will the neighbors think”. Once in a while you will hear something about the “family name”.

These are normal, and by normal I mean occuring fairly regularly, among minorities. These stereotypes are played on incessantly in Hollywood movies and television programs and they make for good entertainment sometimes (eg Bend it Like Beckham).

In Judaism there is a concept of a Shem Tov, a good name. The verse in Ecclesiastes says: “Tov shem m’shemen tov”, a good name is better than good oil. Earning a good reputation and keeping it has a place in the Jewish thought.

Based on my readings, anecdotal evidence and observations I think it is safe to say that orthodox Jews are very concerned with reputation. It is the currency of our social environment. I remember when I was in high school I would hear about girls who would talk to boys, but not in public because they “didn’t want to ruin their name”. Schools are careful who they accept into their school because with each new student comes their reputation. Families hide dark secrets so as not to ruin the family name. Matchmaking runs almost entirely on the “good name stock market”.

In particular, based on the aforementioned sources, I think it safe to say that enclosed chasidic enclaves take reputations to the next level. There is a communal concern about not only personal reputations and family reputations but there is a general community reputation that exists and is cared for.

The way a good reputation is supposed to work is as follows: A person carries their self well, speaks nicely, follows the law, cares for others and slowly but surely, people notice. A reputation is formed. However, one small act can destroy even the most pristine reputation. And it can be nearly impossible to recover that good name. I am fond of quoting Ray Donovan. Donovan was a high ranking federal government official during the Reagan administration. He was indicted on charges of fraud among other crimes. Eventually he was acquitted. After his acquittal he famously remarked: “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”

Indeed a shem tov can take years to create and be destroyed in an instant.

A good name arises organically. It is a natural result of good deeds and good will. A reputation cannot be fabricated. It cannot be crafted. It cannot be orchestrated. If it is, the reputation is a fraud.

On DovBear’s blog I posted a note from a fellow living in New Square (see: The Insider Reaction to New Square Violence). The writer is reacting to the arson / attempted murder of a fellow community by a fellow community member. He focuses very little on the actual incident. Near the end he prays to God. What does he pray?

Why did God allow Skver to take such a public hit and for the entire community to be embarrassed? I am not in heaven, so this makes no sense to me, why we have received such a punishment?

Even in New Square’s darkest moment, the obsession with embarrassment, reputation and good name is apparent.

But the line speaks to a complete misunderstanding of reputation. A reputation is not crafted. It is earned. And it can be lost rather easily. You can’t keep a good name when your community has committed horrible acts. Sorry.

Yet, there is a concerted effort by communities like New Square to maintain the pristine image they have crafted while sacrificing or simply ousting those who tarnish it. They don’t address the problems because the problems are not the issue. The issue is the reputation.

In Unchosen and Hush the parents of children with severe issues, whether it was abuse or simply the child’s concerns about whether they should be religious, were met with a primary concern over reputation and a secondary (if any at all) concern about addressing the issue.

It has been no different in New Square. The Rebbe’s comments thus far have been his message to try and repair or resurrect his community’s good name. But of course, the reputation and good name is not the issue at all. The issue is the broken system in his community. The issue is an attempt on a man and his family’s life.

The lesson is clear. A good name is earned. It is not manufactured in a spin factory. If you behave contrary to your reputation you lose it. More importantly, if your reputation is harmed because of bad deeds, the first step to fixing your reputation is by fixing the bad deeds. The reputation will return the same way it was earned (hopefully). It doesn’t magically return when you reiterate positive acts that may have contributed to earning the good name.

Not surprisingly, in a backwards town, they got it all backwards.

Thoughts on Kiryas Joel: The Poorest City in America

rabbifink — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:12:33 +0000

This post is a direct continuation of the previous post (Book Review | Unchosen).

Over Pesach, the NY Times featured a front page article about Kiryas Joel, the Satmar enclave in Upstate New York. See: Kiryas Joel, N.Y., Lands Distinction as Nation’s Poorest Place.

It received minimal attention on the blogs because of its timing. Had it been during a peak blogging season I am sure it would have been the talk of the town. As it was, the article raised some very important issues about Kiryas Joel, welfare in Chassidus, welfare in general and Chassidus in general.

First, the facts. The poorest place in America with a population of more than 10,000 is Kiryas Joel. KJ is a community that is exclusively chassidic and overwhelmingly Satmar. The second poorest place is a distance speck in the rear view mirror statistically. KJ claims a nearly 70% poverty rate and the second poorest place, Athens Ohio has a 56% poverty rate. The distance between the two is astronomical.

However, KJ is more like suburbia than a typical poverty stricken neighborhood. Nice late model cars are parked in front of upscale stores, women push nice new strollers and there is virtually no street crime. The more affluent members of the community help their poorer neighbors out with free loans and charity. No one goes hungry. The funds are funneled through the religious leadership of the community as are almost all communal matters.

On the one hand, the generosity is admirable. The sense of trust and connection between members of the community is special and should be commended.

On the other hand, some of the ex-chasids in Unchosen see it differently. It is their belief that the leadership of KJ and similar enclaves purposely keep their communities poor. The leadership uses it as a way of asserting their control over the community. People who are uneducated, making little money and with little transferable skills make for good zombie soldiers.

The leadership of the community maintains control over the services for the community so if you want a bite of the apple you need to walk the walk. Not only are financial benefits tied to good standing in the eyes of the leadership of the community, but their opinion of you will determine many other social benefits that are bestowed upon members of the community in good standing. Good recommendations for potential spouses requires their approval as well.

One is not permitted to question the system, the leaders or the ideals. The leaders set the rules and there is no room for question or dissent. One opinion, one set of rules, one way of life period.

I believe this kind of leadership is fascist. This is not democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is a communist regime. It is a stark reminder that absolute power, absolutely corrupts.

Oppressing people so that they will be obedient is downright evil. Requiring them to live by an arbitrary set of rules and regulations and cutting them off if they don’t is a travesty.

If these allegations are true, the leadership of these communities is responsible and reprehensible. That is the worst case scenario. The best case scenario is that the leadership does not realize that this is the result of their choices. But that makes the situation no less dire.

For most people living in these communities there is no way out. They rely on their neighbors and friends for everything and they are severely limited in their ability to earn a living outside the community. They speak english as a second language and have below high school level educations.

The sad irony is that chassidus was created to give everyone an opportunity to connect with the spiritual and religious. It was the everyman Judaism. Today , in some places, [and let me be clear, this is about specific isolated enclaves,] it has been relegated to a cult of blind adherence to leaders who inherited their positions from their fathers or pay the price. This is not what chassidus was supposed to be.

That is something even a non-chasid like me can get upset by.

(Tomorrow this will be discussed in the context of the recent arson incident in New Square)

Book Review | Unchosen

rabbifink — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:23:50 +0000

Better late than never.

While browsing the local Barnes and Noble, I made a stop at the perilously thin Judaism section. There are a couple shelves of mostly uninteresting books. Only one book caught my eye. Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels. I vaguely recall hearing about this book a while back. (As in years ago, But I never read it.)

Now I have a renewed interest in the lives of those who live in a community that they are not comfortable in since my Thoughts on Ami Magazine’s Orthoprax Article: The Impostors Among Us blog post. So I purchased the book at Barnes and Noble, something I rarely do, and read the book after the meal on the 7th night of Pesach.

The book is really a dissertation by the author who intended to study hasidic Jews in Williamsburg for her Ph.D. By accident, she began a study of those who left or were in the process of leaving hasidic Judaism. For this I am thankful, because it was way more interesting than the former.

Unchosen had me almost right away when it distinguished between Lubavitch / Chabad and all other chasidic groups. This is something that I have discussed with friends online and in real life that was very well stated in the book.

This is a very important distinction and I quote the book here because it is an important point about Lubavitch and a more important point about Chasidic Judaism in general. They are isolated. Almost completely.

What happens when someone who was isolated wants to rejoin society at large? Unchosen tells that story. Short version: It is very hard, sometimes humorous and always painful.

The book is similar to Hush (reviewed here: Book Review | Hush) in that it does a decent job describing the immense social pressure placed upon members of the Chasidic community. So much of their approach to dealing with issues is by worrying what the neighbors will say and less about what might have caused the issues or even thinking about solutions to the issues.

Another very eye opening element of Unchosen is the interests of those who “leave”. The writer of the Ami article assumed it was because of mental illness. Others say it is because they want to commit sins. But the truth is obviously more comples. The subjects in Unchosen had a varitey of interests. Some of the interests were purely intellectual. But they could not satisfy their intellectual interests within their community. They wanted to read literetature or even just Jewish philosiphy from non-Orthodox rabbis. These were forbidden. For this reason many of them began to venture off into the libraries of New York. It seems that the Jewish Theoligical Seminary library, with its vast collection of Jewish books, is a frequent haunt of these rebels. Hardly the places of debauchery and hedonism some are wont to believe draws people away from tradition.

I also found that the confusion between what is mitzvah, halacha, minhag and social convention really hurt these rebels. They were taught that a streimel or chasidic dress in general was on the same level as keeping Shabbos or kosher. Obviously this is not true and wrong. But because they were taught this, it made it that much easier to leave mitzvah observance after shaving a beard.

Something else in Unchosen that was interesting was the revered rabbi who became an orthodox Jewish feminist and left the chasidic community because of their approach to women. He kind of reminded me of a less atheistic version of the orthoprax rabbi (see: The Orthoprax Rabbi Takes the J-Blogosphere By Storm) and I was pleased to see that he was able to (kind of) leave the Chasidic world but find a comfortable place in the non-chasidic orthodox community.

Of course the Internet played a large role in these people finding each other, finding comfort and finding their new lives. The Internet cannot be blamed, but it was a part of the process.

The thing that left the greatest impact on me was the insight of one woman who left the chasidic world and to placate her family and her daughter’s father sends her daughter to a modern orthodox Jewish school. She herself is not observant but leaves room for the possibility that she could become more observant after she heals (she was sexually abused) and can reconnect with her Judaism. She expects her daughter to be observant and raises her in that kind of home. She remarked that she would always try to discipline her child to be a good person and keep the rules of Judaism. She tries to make it fun and not about fear. That is a great. But what struch me is that she said that while she might, from time to time, yell at her daughter about other things, she would never yell at her daughter about anything having to do with religion. For her it has to be about love and happiness. Not fear and yelling. At the very least, it is something worth thinking about.

Overall Unchosen is an amazing book. It offers insight that people of all walks of life can and should learn from. I am very happy that I read it and I recommend that adults read this book.

Ultimately, there are many lessons in the book that can help keep as many as possible, “chosen”.

There will be one more future post about this book forthcoming.

An Ex-Chasidic Reality Star Breaks Barriers (and Halacha)

rabbifink — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:47:58 +0000

The Food Network has this show called “Worst Cooks in America”. I have heard of it but have never seen it. It doesn’t sound very good. But apparently it’s pretty popular. I would imagine for all the train-wreck TV fans out there, this is the perfect show.

The show finds horrible home cooks, teaches them culinary skills and pits them against each other in cooking competitions. One of the contestants was introduced to the viewers via his burnt cholent. Joshie Berger grew up in Boro Park and his family is Chasidic. These days Joshie is not Chasidic at all.

The Atlantic has an article noting some of Joshie’s finer moments on the show. The article is mostly positive. But not positive in a Jewish sense. It is positive in a cultural sense. The author commends Joshie for stepping outside his comfort zone and eating shellfish. In fact Joshie is portrayed as one who is reluctant to eat non-kosher foods. The article says a “highpoint of this past season” was when Joshie overcame his aversion to treyf.

Some high point.

Joshie was a quick learner and in the end he came out on top.

It can be very hard for those who leave Chasidic Judaism to succeed on the outside. They have a limited education, limited social skills that are needed on the outside and they speak English as a second language. So for Joshie to emerge victorious is in fact quite impressive.

It’s also nice that, according to the article, Joshie’s old friends were rooting for him to win.

But that doesn’t change the fact that when reading the article my stomach turned several times because of Joshie’s choices that led him away from his heritage. It’s sad.

There’s one thing that Joshie has been preaching that is absolutely correct. Orthodox Jews need to eat better. Amen to that.

Link: The Atlantic

In The Atlantic: The Hassidim of the Consumer Electronics Show

rabbifink — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:46:37 +0000

Photo: The Atlantic

Anyone who knows about technology, knows that the latest and greatest gadgets are all in Las Vegas right now for the consumer electronics show. The Atlantic is covering the show and found something they deemed newsworthy that is not directly related to “Consumer Electronics”.

There are chasidic Jews at the show.

Chasidic Judaism is often misdefined as “Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It’s not. It is simply a way of life that focuses on the spirituality of the world and comes with a certain dress code. The men keep their beards, wear long coats and fur hats on holy days. But within chasidic Judaism, some are more “pious” than others. Being a chasidic Jew does not mean that one is more religious or more holy. It is a way of Jewish life that provides opportunities for religiousness or holiness, just like any other.

At CES, the chasidic Jews are not developing new products. That would take an expertise that nearly all chasidic Jews do not have (ie heavy training in engineering and technology). Instead they are there as the classic Jewish middlemen. Using their connections and (hopefully) trustworthiness to develop relationships that can get them good prices on electronic goods and sell them to the marketplace at a fair price.

I think it is a common error to assume that chasidic Jews do not have regular jobs. True, there are scarcely any chasidic Jews who are professionals. College and secondary education are shunned. But nearly all chasidic Jews work. They are small business owners, they work in the services industry and they wheel and deal as middlemen.

I am proud that chasidic Jews are at CES. One of the men at the show was asked by the Atlantic if being chasidic impacts his business. He replied: “People look at us as very honest people”. That’s more important than any degree or faux religousness.

That is called making a kiddush Hashem.

Link: The Atlantic

The Good Wife: Unorthodox, From a Rabbi / Law Student Perspective

rabbifink — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:33:59 +0000

The Good Wife is a new legal drama on CBS. The show is great. Usually the legal issues are portrayed correctly (at least from a law student’s perspective) and the character development of the main character has been superb.

This week’s episode revolved around a chasidic couple living in Chicago who were responsible to fix a fallen eruv wire, but since it fell on Shabbos they had to wait until Shabbos had ended and in the meantime a woman claims she fell over the wire and is suing for 1.2 million dollars in punitive damages. The title of the episode does not refer to the couple, rather it refers to their lawyer with an unorthodox approach to law.

Read on for my comments, critiques and a HUGE PLOT HOLE.

The defense is based on the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, and claims that the couple has the right to practice their religion and a jury should decide if they are liable when they believe it would be wrong for them to fix the eruv wire. That defense fails when the wife (a recent baalas tshuva / one who returns to Orthodox Judaism later in life) is found to have been making phone calls to her father on Shabbos. If she calls her father on Shabbos she should also be able to fix the fallen wire. Ultimately, the defense shows that the entire slip and fall was concocted and the jury finds for the defense.

You can read a full synopsis of the episode here or, even better, you can watch the show (at least for the time being) on CBS.com.

The portrayal of the chasidic community, the laws of eruv and the relationship between the chasidic couple were pretty good. BUt there were a few things that they got wrong. It is so funny to me that any orthodox Jew would notice the nuances that are incorrect but the entire staff of the show does not see the mistakes. Ironically, last week’s episode of The Good Wife revolved around a witness who could not tell the difference between 2 black men. It seems that people from other ethnicities have a hard time seeing the nuances of other ethnicities. It is no different when Hollywood tries to portrays Jews. They simply don’t have the sensitivities to the finer details of orthodox Judaism, especially chasidic Judaism.

Things They Got Mostly Correct

The chasidic garb. She was wearing typical women’s dress. Subdued colors and very modest. He was in black and white with his hat nearby at all times.

Strollers. Everyone had strollers in the chasidic neighborhood.

Kosher markets. There was a kosher market within walking distance.

The shomrim guy. He looked like every non-chasidic Hatzalah (Jewish volunteer ambulance core) guy I know.

The intimacy between the couple. Most couples on the show celebrate victory with public hugs and kisses. The chasidic couple did not embrace in public, but their connection was displayed by touching each other’s hands secretly.

Mistakes

The chasidic guy never smiles. That is just not nice.

The chasidic guy has a “tchup”(coiffed hair), chasidic men have hair that is cut very short.

The chasidic guy has a trimmed beard, that is not common at all.

The chasidic guy has a RING! (I mean, come on, that’s an easy one!)

They say an eruv “creates a symbolic courtyard“, that’s not quite true, an eruv joins many domains into one common domain by surround the entire community with a wall. (But that is a hard one.)

A young chasidic boy has a leather kipa perched awkwardly on the back of his head.

Something That Bothered Me

The wife was a twice rehabbed drug loving party girl who found chasidic Judaism while incarcerated. Showing her revival as a chasidic Jewish woman bothered me slightly. It was if to say, one has to be so crazy to find chasidic Judaism attractive. Maybe I am nitpicking, but it bothered me just a little.

HUGE PLOT HOLE

When the plaintiff got injured it was Shabbos. She was asked why she was walking through this neighborhood and she said she was going to the market. She was asked why this market if there are four markets closer to her home and she said because this market is the kosher market where they sell gluten free products.

Do you see the problem? (answer below)

This is an inexcusable error. CBS, next time you want to do a show with chasidic or Orthodox Jewish characters and plot elements you can hire me. I will be your rabbinical consultant and make sure you get it right.

The Good Wife is a great show. One of the reasons it is great is not the attention to detail. A twitter buddy of mine also noticed a legal problem a few weeks ago. I guess when you are law student and a Rabbi you are going to notice the mistakes of Jewish culture and law.

(Plot hole answer: The kosher market is closed on Shabbos. She could never be walking to a kosher market on Shabbos!)

Read this blog post by @matthue about his experience as an extra for the episode!

What Is The Appropriate Reaction?

rabbifink — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:02:18 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear. – more discussion there.

In addition to my work as the Rabbi at Pacific Jewish Center at the Shul on the Beach I am also a Law Student at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. I am part of the evening program and completed my first year of evening classes in May.

In December I was subjected to mid-terms in each of my courses. Many Law School exams are long fact patterns that require the student to analyze the facts and apply all the law that is relevant to the facts and then argue why the law should or should not apply to those facts. Usually these fact patterns are fiction and these essays are typically 3 – 4 hours in duration.

My torts professor gave us a very interesting fact pattern. The basics of the case were, two young boys named Israel and Jacob enter an elevator on their way to school. Along the way the elevator malfunctions and the boys are suspended between the 10th and 11th floor. The doors malfunction as well and the doors are opened. The younger boy, Jacob is 5 and he tries to jump from the stuck elevator to the 10th floor below. Jacob jumps and does not “stick the landing“. Unfortunately, he stumbles off the 10th floor and plummeted 10 stories beneath the elevator down the shaft to his death. Israel is eventually rescued.

There were many more legally operative facts in the fact pattern and our professor wanted us to analyze the claims against the building landlord, owner and elevator maintenance company.

It was a pretty shocking case for all of us. When we returned to school after the break our professor told us that the fact pattern was basically a true story with some of the facts changed to make a clearer essay. Immediately I “googled” “Jacob Israel Elevator”. I found the original NY Times article with the tragic story.

Yesterday the Times had another article on the ongoing litigation. Apparently, the defense wants young Israel, who is 10 and traumatized to testify. This is horrible as any memories of the tragedy could alter his psychological well being tremendously. The case is being litigated as you read this.

I told this entire saga to two people I know. They are both very caring and sensitive people. They both had the same reaction and that reaction is what prompted this post.

When I told the story over, both people had serious looks on their faces and clearly empathized with the poor child.

Then I told them, by the way, the little boys were Chasidish children from Williamsburg.

They both had the same second reaction. Their jaws dropped and they exclaimed Oy! That’s terrible! A much harsher reaction reaction than before they knew the boys’ ethnicity.

At first I was disturbed. Do we care more about some poor Chasidish kids from Williamsburg than anyone else? Is this tragedy worse to us because they are Jewish?

Is this a good attitude? Could this bother non-Jews and provoke anti-semitism?

Or, perhaps it is normal for us to care more about our Jewish brethren. Maybe, we should feel more compassion for our fellow Jews. After all, it is a rule of Jewish law that we are responsible for one another.

This has been gnawing at me for a little while now. Should we care more about a Jewish tragedy than a non-Jewish tragedy?

Even if we are allowed to care more about a Jewish tragedy should we try and mask our feelings to be more politically correct?

Aren’t we outraged when non-Jews do not care about Jewish tragedy as much as non-Jewish tragedy?