Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » dovbear

The Psychic Benefit of Owning an NBA Team (or a Yeshiva)

rabbifink — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:06:19 +0000

It has been a while since my last Malcolm Gladwell post. That streak ends today.

On Grantland.com, Gladwell is critical of the owners of NBA teams. Currently, the NBA owners have locked out the NBA players. The collective bargaining agreement expired and the owners want a better deal this time around. Small market owners are claiming that they are losing money. They want to cut costs. The players have not assented to the terms of the owners, namely, lower salaries so that the owners can make more money.

On the face of it, the owners seem to be taking out frustration with each other on the players. If they want to pay the players less money they should simply pay the players less money. The exorbitant salaries for players who are being overpaid are not the fault of the players. They are the fault of foolish owners and bad management.

Further, there is an easier solution for NBA owners to make more money. Revenue sharing. That is how it is done in other sports. The NBA should follow suit and create a more equitable revenue sharing model.

Gladwell however, believes that the owners entire premise is wrong. His opinion is that NBA owners have no right to demand that their teams make money. The reason someone buys an NBA team is not to make money. Billionaires buy teams to satisfy a different need; not financial gain. This is called a “psychic benefit”. Gladwell compares it to owning a Van Gogh. One does not buy a Van Gogh as an investment. One buys a Van Gogh simply to have the Van Gogh. If the painting does not increase in value, that is not really a concern. After all, you have the Van Gogh.

The argument is compelling and he might be correct. Gladwell is basically saying that NBA owners have no right invoking economic principles when discussing their costs and profits. They did not buy the team as an investment so they can’t complain when their non-investment is not turning a profit.

Reading the article and thinking about the argument reminded me of a guest post on DovBear from last year. The guest poster is an administrator at a Yeshiva and he expressed displeasure with another guest poster complaining about tuition costs. Further, he expressed frustration with parents who don’t pay their bills as per their tuition contracts and prioritize their spending by placing education near the bottom of the list.

A serious, sometimes passionate discussion ensued in the comments. Perhaps the most salient point of all was made by DovBear: (And I paraphrase) “A school should be treated like a business and if it cannot run efficiently then it should not run at all.”

I think Malcolm Gladwell would disagree. Not everything that looks like a business is a business. An NBA team is only somewhat like a business. But it is more like a Van Gogh. You cannot apply standard rules of economics to NBA teams. Yeshivos also look like businesses, but I think Gladwell’s point about NBA teams can be applied similarly to our yeshivos.

People don’t open schools to make money. They are not an investment. The standard rules of economics cannot be applied to yeshivos.

Yeshivos are opened for to serve the community. They are opened simply so that there are yeshivos for our children to attend.

I think it might be unfair to try to apply the common rules of economics to our schools. They do need to be run efficiently. They do need to be able to stay afloat. But above all, they need to stay open so that our children get the education that they need.

Certainly, we can demand excellence and we can demand responsible spending of communal funds. But I don’t think we can demand that our schools run like an investment firm, supermarket, hospital or coffee shop.

Unfortunately, most of our yeshivos are not (yet) “Van Goghs”, but practically speaking, they really are.

More discussion on DovBear.

Links: Grantland, DovBear

The Accuracy of the Written Torah

rabbifink — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:43:27 +0000

A really old Torah scroll

I’m no scholar of ancient texts. But there are scholars of ancient texts. A large group of them has been studying the evolution of the text of the Tanach (the Jewish version of the Old Testament) for 53 years.

It is important to note that the text we have today has remained virtually unchanged since the 11th century. It was then that Maimonides used the Aleppo Codex to codify a version of the Torah scroll. That version is almost exactly what we have today.

But notice, I used the word “almost”. That’s because it is not exactly the same. Or it might not be exact. There are several nuances that differentiate the standard Torah scroll used in the majority of Jewish communities from the Yemenite Torah text tradition. They can’t both be exactly the same as the text codified by Maimonides.

Certainly the Talmud seems to indicate that they had a different version. The Talmud in Kiddushin gives specific places as the middle of the text and the number of words and letters. None of those are consistent with our text. In several places various rishonim (Medieval commentators) indicate that there were small differences between the Torah scrolls among their peers. Other rishonim stated that the text was deliberately changed by later prophets in certain instances. They were permitted to do so as long as none of the Torah’s laws were affected by their changes.

None of the differences that have been recorded are significant enough to change the law. None of the discrepancies have an effect of the theology or religion of the Torah. Yet, there has emerged a “sacred belief” that the Torah remains unchanged over the 3000 years since the Revelation at Sinai.

This is quite obviously impossible.

A massive project in Israel is charting all the extant versions of the text and their collective history. They are using every possible version and manuscript to show any and all minor differences between each version. The Aleppo Codex is the starting point for the project and all differences are being compared to that version.

And there are differences. It is impossible to pretend otherwise. But this should not be a problem for believers in orthodox Judaism. There are several acceptable approaches to the issues raised by the variations in the text. Each approach appeals to different styles within orthodox Judaism.

1) Hashgacha pratis. God runs the world. Whatever changes that have evolved are part of a grand Master Plan.

2) Lo bashamayim hi. “The Torah is not in the Heavens”. Once the Torah was given to Man, it was understood that there would be mistakes. We do our best to avoid mistakes, but errors are inevitable and it cannot be legitimately stated that our version is perfect.

3) Torah She’Baal Peh is primary. The truth is that we do not live our lives as orthodox Jews based on the Written Law as much as we lived based on its interpretation in the Oral Law. Mistakes in the Written Law have no real bearing on a Jewish life based on the Oral Law.

Certainly each of these positions is more nuanced and broad than the one or two sentence headlines mentioned here. The point is that approaches exist and we should not be afraid of them.

What about the 8th principle of faith according to the Rambam?

See my post about this on DovBear’s blog: The Rambam’s 8th Principle According to R’ Yaakov Weinberg

Link: AP

The Sanhedrin, Groupthink and Daas Torah

rabbifink — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:18:40 +0000

Today’s New York Times presents a fascinating argument made by Dr. Schnall from YU.

Schnall argues that the ancient Jewish Sanhedrin built into its system a foil to the fatal flaws of “groupthink”. Groupthink explains how otherwise very intelligent people can make terrible decisions as a group. Often, members of a group defer to others and they lose their voice even when they might disagree with the majority or group leaders. Without voices of dissent, even groups can make disastrous decisions.

The Sanhedrin had rules that forced the group out of groupthink. First and foremost, any unanimous decision regarding a capital case was discarded. Other minor rules also did their part. For example, junior members spoke first so that their opinions would original and not be influenced by the elders. Dr. Schnall cites many other examples from the Sanhedrin’s rules that he claims are helpful in avoiding groupthink.

On the Times website they leave this question hanging for their readers:

What do you think? Is a unanimous decision a sign of a slam dunk or overwhelming groupthink?

While I find that question interesting, I am more interested in whether our current Daas Torah style of rabbinic leadership might be suffering from some sort of groupthink? (Yes, this might offensive to people who believe that rabbis are not human and do not ever make mistakes but per my tradition from my rabbis and teachers this is a perfectly acceptable position, thankyouverymuch.) I wonder, is there dissent in the Moetzes? Do the rabbis disagree with one another? Or do they all defer to the leadership? Much in the same way that those who live and breathe by every word uttered from their mouths? Is it possible that they disagree in private and present a united front in their public statements? Yes. But wouldn’t we all feel more confident if we knew that for certain?

I know it is a cop out to ask open-ended questions on a blog and not answer them (ahem, NY Times Arts Beat). But in this case, I just don’t know. I have my suspicions but I have no way to confirm them. It is, however, worthwhile food for thought.

Link: NY Times

HT: You Know Who You Are

The Future of Women in Orthodox Judaism

rabbifink — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:01:44 +0000

I am a big fan of Hakirah, a really nicely done Torah journal. I was turned onto the publication by a friend of mine who was published in the journal and am now a subscriber.

The most recent Hakirah attempted to begin to tackle the issue of women in the rabbinate. It began with a short article from Rabbi Herschel Schachter who did not do the subject justice but concluded, based on the laws of tznius, that a position such as Rabbi is not a preferable place for men or women due to its very public nature. However in choosing who should perform the public duties of a Rabbi, it is better to have men in a position of non-tznius than women.

R’ Schachter’s article is interesting but too short. It leaves way too much wiggle room and seems to be referring mostly to women pulpit rabbis.

The next article does a much more comprehensive job of dealing with the issue. Its authors are Rabbi Michael Broyde and Rabbi Shlomo Brody.

When I first broached this topic on this blog I did so in the context of social change. (PLEASE READ: Patience Is A Virtue and An Important Ingredient For Change) My premise is that all social change happens slowly. Change that is too quick or premature can backfire. I predicted that women would continue to see more prominent roles in areas of religious leadership over time.

My good friend DovBear vehemently disagreed with this wait and see approach. In his mind an injustice cannot be tolerated at all. Since he feels that the current situation for women in orthodox Judaism is an injustice, patience is a curse, not a cure. Now DovBear is entitled to shriek from the rooftops but that doesn’t mean anything will change. Personally, I am concerned with real change not just proclamations.

I view the issue primarily as a social one, not a halachic one. The reason for this is that I believe that the law will adapt to the social environment. However this is only possible if there is a halachic mechanism to give women a more prominent role in religious leadership. It has been demonsrated by Rabbis Broyde and Brody that it can. Certainly it can also be prohibited by law if one makes certain halachic decisions. But it would be equally halachically acceptable to adapt what is currently halachically acceptable. One major factor the Rabbis cite, is the public needs, desires and perception.

I strongly recommend reading the full article. I have uploaded an annotated verstion of the article with specific key points underlined. Read that here: Hakirah Vol 11.

My summary of the women in religious leadership roles in orthodox Judaism is as follows:

Many women in the Bible are heroes. They frequently possess keener insight than their male counterparts. Sometimes they are stronger than the men. Other times they play a secondary role, but star anyway. Midrashim also speak highly of women. In the law, women are afforded much more liberty and equality than in other ancient legal systems. In ancient times, the Torah was a progressive woman’s best hope. There is no indication in the Torah that women could not and should not be able to achieve the same level of scholarship or religious leadership as men. The one example where women are severely limited is in becoming king or by extension any other position of serara.

The Talmud has several statements that seem to disparage women. The most classic example is the oft repeated prohibition against teaching women Torah. The Talmud explains this statement by one Tanna in a Mishna with the statement “Nashim daatam kalos“. Which literally translated means that women are weak-minded and since that is the case, it is futile to teach them Torah. The Rambam codifies this into halacha.

Throughout the world, for the bulk of the last 2000 years since the beginning of the Mishnaic period the sentiment that women are inferior has been accepted as fact. It is plain as day to see this fact when considering the great lengths women had to go in order to get equal rights in the greatest democracy in the world. Even as few as 103 years ago, the Supreme Court has no problem publishing an opinion based on the fact that women were primarily vehicles of reproductivity and must be protected from working too many hours lest we harm their reproductive prowess. As per the summary on Oyez.org “Brewer’s opinion conveyed the accepted wisdom of the day: that women were unequal and inferior to men.” (Muller v. Oregon).

2000 years ago it was a given. Women are inferior. It took thousands of years for the secular world to escape that mentality.

I am aware of the mental gymnastics and apologetics to excuse or “explain” what the Talmud meant. To me, they are useless. In a world where women have every opportunity that men have, women are choosing to accomplish things their grandmothers could never have dreamed. Orthodox Jewish women expect and should expect to have similar opportunities within their religion. AH! But it wasn’t ever this way! We ALWAYS did it the old way! How can we break from Tradition? Worse, are we violating halacha?!

In my opinion, there is no shame in admitting the mistakes of our past. The rabbis in the Talmud were entirely justified in using the feelings and temperament of their era in applying them to Torah and Law. I don’t believe that we are bound to maintain their opinions of women or anyone. Certainly they were wise and certainly they did the best they could to serve Hashem and teach us for posterity how to do the same. But they were people and people are subject to the notions and vicissitudes of their time.

[I have been accused of being a "Conservative Rabbi" and a "fraud" for holding this position. I don't believe this is a fair criticism. As per the Rambam, the variety of opinions on matters such as these are not part of the Oral Law passed down from Sinai to Moses and beyond. Thus, acknowledging that the rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud were able to formulate their own opinions and were not merely transmitting previously known information that was received at Sinai is not any more the attitude of a "Conservative Rabbinics" than it is the attitude of the Rambam.]

There is no shame in recognizing that the social environment and scientific data have changed our opinion of what women are capable of accomplishing. It would be foolish to assume that women are able to function at the highest levels of academia, science, politics, or any non-physical activity but would be unable to achieve great accomplishments in Torah and religious leadership. Indeed, they can.

The question is “may they?”.

To this question Rabbis Broyde and Brody answer a resounding… “Possibly”. But a key to their analysis is public acceptance of change in attitude towards women’s ever increasing role in orthodox Jewish religious life.

A century ago women had far fewer opportunities than they do today. As I wrote previously, the fact that women can study Torah in schools and places of higher learning and maintain positions of authority in Torah institutions is certainly a great innovation of the last 100 years. It is not to be taken lightly or for granted. The wisdom of our rabbis in allowing this change must be noted. The point is that women are on a track and the track is leading to a place of even greater opportunity for women. The only remaining question is how long it will take to get there.

When the public demands it, it will happen. When it becomes necessary it will happen. When the only obvious choice is to take that train to the next station, it will happen.

To be clear, I am not condoning the recent ordination of orthodox Jewish women as Rabbis (or Rabbas, or whatever). Nor am I proposing that within a few decades women will be taking positions as pulpit rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva. I am saying that there will be more opportunities for scholarship at least on par with the opportunities men have to study Torah vigorously. Correspondingly, there will be a need for women leaders and educators who have demonstrated mastery over their studies. Today, women are chosen as teachers and educators and yet, generally, compared with a mediocre yeshiva student they are ignoramuses. Creating greater opportunities for higher learning will change that. Women who are so inclined will able to receive recognition for scholarship and Torah knowledge. Our children will benefit from better school teachers. Our synagogues will benefit from better Torah classes given by women.

All this being said, it remains a choice for each woman or family to decide. Every family is different and some women may be happy or happier with more traditional roles. But those roles will be borne out of a choice as opposed to lack of choice. It will help women who make either choice, or if they can somehow choose both better Jews and better mother, each in their own way.

What should we do in the meantime? Rabbis Broyde and Brody said it best:

Women should sit and study for increasingly long periods of time, write serious scholarship in Torah, develop as inspiring spiritual personas, and lead Torah institutions, in function if not in form. In short, they should build the Orthodox community brick by brick, and see what happens over time.

So to summarize my summary:

Women used to be thought of as inferior. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that. But now we know they aren’t. They may have different roles. That should not preclude them from scholarship and recognition as Torah scholars and leaders. Eventually it won’t. Meanwhile, become scholars as best you can. This is all reconcilable with halacha. Of course it is.

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.

[Colloquial] Kiddush Hashem in Japan

rabbifink — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:12:03 +0000

Crossposted to DovBear here: A Nice Little Kiddush Hashem

I just bumped into one of my (Jewish) Law School professors and he told me something worth sharing.

He was reading an article about the Japan disaster fund. Donations are coming in from all over the world. In the article, a Japanese government official was quoted [paraphrase] with this little gem:

“Why do so many people send donations of $18? It’s such a strange number for a donation.”

Link: NY Times

Book Review | The Queen You Thought You Knew

rabbifink — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:09:48 +0000

Purim is a few days away, but I have a late entry for Purim reading. I recommend Rabbi David Fohrman’s The Queen You Thought You Knew. If you order it today, you can get it before Shabbos and read the book before Purim. It is an easy read and the book is not too long.

The Queen You Thought You Knew is worthwhile addition to your library. Rabbi Fohrman discusses a novel approach to the Purim story. His work is mostly speculative but presented reasonably and in my opinion, responsibly.

The premise of the book is that there are many many questions that remain unanswered in the Megilla which can be answered with the novel approach of Rabbi Forhman. Many of the questions in the book have been asked and answered by Chazal or more recent rabbis. But I am not aware of any holistic solution to some of the more well known and lesser known challenges within the Megilla narrative.

Rabbi Forhman takes us on a journey of question, thought and theory to find answers and ultimately his novel approach.

I won’t ruin the book in this post but I will say that it is nothing like anything you have heard before. The book is clearly well researched and well thought out.

Although I wholeheartedly recommend this book. But there is one small caveat. It is important to note that Rabbi Fohrman’s theory is almost completely unsubstantiated in Chazal or other classical sources. It is almost entirely novel and based purely on the text of the Megilla. Rabbi Fohrman himself seems to forewarn of this throughout the book by hedging the theory of the book as speculative and a possibility not to the exclusion of any other idea. To some, this may be a great accomplishment. To others it may be controversial. I think it is a worthwhile read if only for the questions presented and the very novel solution as tenuous as it may be.

While using an academic style of study, the book fails to use any external corroborative materials to support its flimsy premise. In fact, I think the historical record would indicate that the premise is wrong. In my mind, if you’re going to use academic methodology, you should provide some scholarly support for your premise. This is the biggest and most glaring flaw of the book. Outside of this critique the book’s premise is elegant and useful.

It is also worthwhile to discuss the merits and demerits of the style of study the book represents. It is a departure from typical yeshiva style study in that it is more similar to academic text-based study. This is different than almost every other Torah book that is studied in the yeshiva milieu. It remains to be seen if this will become a more popular form of study or if it will be shunned by the yeshiva fraternity.

This last issue is being discussed in my post on DovBear: Is Rabbi Fohrman’s Purim Book Controversial?

Order on Amazon by clicking any of the links or simply clicking here: The Queen You Thought You Knew

Reform Judaism is Reforming Its Approach to Kashrus

rabbifink — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:23:35 +0000

This post has been crossposted to DovBear. More discussion there: Reform Jews Interested in Kashrus

Ask most Orthodox Jews about Kashrus and Reform Judaism, you’ll most likely hear a snicker from the uninformed or a reference to the “Treyfe Banquet” (see: New National Museum of American Jewish History In Philadelphia Apparently Misses the Mark) from the more informed. As far as I know, Reform Judaism has never officially sanctioned Kashrus observance.

I remember reading an article 3 years ago about young Reform Jews pining to add more ritual observance to their summer camp experience. They wanted to add tefillin, kashrus and a more traditional Shabbos. At the time, I thought that was really cool. (read about it here: The Jewish Week).

Today, I saw another step in this direction referenced on Twitter (HT @schnit). A new book has been published for Reform Jews that want to observe some level of Kashrus. Apparently, this is a first. The book tackles broader issues than simple dietary restrictions such as animal cruelty and treatment / paying laborers.

I think it’s great. I would only hope that just as Reform Jews are learning from the ideals of Orthodox Jews as far as Kashrus is concerned, Orthodox Jews can learn from the concern the Reform Jews express for animal cruelty and treatment / paying laborers.

(link: JTA)

Did This High School Football Coach Cheat? Or Was He Just Unethical?

rabbifink — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:23:47 +0000

Manchester High School Indians

This post has been crossposted to DovBear – more discussion there: DovBear

Sports-talk radio is abuzz over an incident that occurred a few weeks ago at a High-School football game in Connecticut.

Southington vs Manchester was tied at 14 at halftime. Some time during the first half, a Manchester player dropped his armband with the entire Manchester playbook and the codewords for each of those plays. A Southington player picked it up. The player gave the armband to his coach.

The coach used the information on the armband to stymie the Manchester offense and eventually won the game 28-14.

It seems to me that High-School sports are competitive as well as educational. This was a failed opportunity to educate on fairness, sportsmanship and winning the “right way”. But what of the competition aspect? Is this ethical? Is this cheating? Is there a space between cheating and unethical behavior? All good questions.

The biggest question for me is, how do we treat sports? Meaning, sports have their own rules, do the rules of the real world apply during the game? Or are the real world rules suspended during the game and as long as you follow the rules of the game you are doing the right thing?

So, what would do you think? What would you do?

(The Coach was suspended for a game)

(And his brother plays for the Patriots, home of the cheating coaches)

Link: ESPN.com

Some Thoughts on "Keeping it Kosher" as seen in the NY Times Magazine

rabbifink — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:12:51 +0000

In yesterday’s New York Time Magazine (and on NYT.com last week) an interesting article about a diverse kosher restaurant in Crown Heights appeared. (Keeping It Kosher) In my opinion the article made three basic points.

1) It is possible for a diverse, upscale kosher restaurant to exist and operate successfully.

2) The community in Crown Heights is not diverse and suffers tensions with its non-Jewish neighbors.

3) The kosher supervision of the restaurant oversees the status of the food and also tries to control the way the clientele behave and dress while in the restaurant.

Point number one is correct. There are other upscale kosher restaurants that cater to all sorts of people and I for one, would like to see more places a kashrus observant business person could take non-kashrus observant friends, clients, partners and bosses without apologizing for subpar food, service and ambiance.

Point number two is not limited by any means to Crown Heights. I have noticed that the more insular a community becomes, the less tolerant they become of others. Perhaps it is more ironic in Crown Heights because of the international (probably soon to be intergalactic) reputation that Chabad shluchim have earned as being open and welcoming to all people.

But it is not a problem specific to Chabad. All Jewish neighborhoods that limit interactions to people that are overwhelmingly similar to one another suffer from a nearsighted view of humanity. It is not just between Jews and non-Jew, it is perhaps even more profound when the differences between Jew and Jew and even more minute differences between Orthodox Jews create closed communities that shun outsiders.

For 500 years we tried to get out of the ghetto. Now that we are out all we want to do retreat into our own self-made ghettos…

The value of diversity has been challenged. One reason diversity is good is because it forces everyone to be tolerant. Without diversity a ghetto mentality has room to grow. This appplies universally. Orthodox Jews, to WASPy Country Clubs, the Inner City and Suburbia. Monotony breeds contempt.

If you are interested in point number three you will need to go to DovBear: Three Points on the NYT Mag Article on Basil. Be warned, if you are not an orthodox Jew, you may not understand what I have written. This is because it involves some intricacies of Jewish Law. No offense.

My View on Kaparos

rabbifink — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:20:54 +0000

I have been asked if I will doing kaparos with a chicken.

(If you don’t know what that is, don’t bother.)

Click here for my post on DovBear about the subject: Why I Won’t Be Waving a Chicken Over My Head This Week

The NCAA and Following Rules

rabbifink — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:08:33 +0000

Masoli in Court

This post has been crossposted to DovBear – The NCAA and Contemporary Orthodox Judaism.

Last year, Jeremiah Masoli was the quarterback for the Oregon Ducks. He got into some trouble with the law and committed second degree burglary and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The Ducks cut him from the team and Masoli transferred to Ole Miss.

At first he was considered a transfer and would be forced to sit out the year. He appealed and won the appeal and is now eligible to play for Ole Miss. Apparently, the NCAA does not feel that breaking the law warrants a suspension.

For the last five years, the NCAA has been investigating Reggie Bush and benefits his family received from a potential agent. In finding that Bush broke NCAA rules by accepting gifts (like a house for his family) the NCAA sanctioned USC by taking away scholarships, banning them from bowl games and taking away personal awards. Apparently, the NCAA feels that breaking ITS rules warrants severe punishment.

A few weeks ago, Rabbi Weil wrote a wonderful article on how Orthodox Judaism has morphed into caring more about its own rules than the rules of society and the laws of our country. (Link: OU.org) We concentrate so much on the rituals and customs of Orthodox Judaism that set us apart from other religions that sometimes the basics of citizenship get ignored. It is especially egregious because our law has many of those same laws!

It’s almost just the NCAA. It seems like we care more about our own rules than the laws of the land. This is wrong.

As we begin a New Year, I think we need to recommit ourselves to the universal laws of good all the while celebrating those laws that make us different. We can afford to ignore neither.

Fundamentalists and Extremists Are The Exceptions, Not The Rule

rabbifink — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:05:11 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear: Don’t Judge A Group By It’s Extremists

The Westboro Baptist Church practices and preaches an extremely fundamental version of Christianity. They hold that God punishes American soldiers in Iraq because there are “Gays in the military”. They hate Jews because Jews are they killed Jesus and are the cause of fornication. They protest at shuls, Holocaust Museums and funerals of soldiers. They are fundamentalists and like many fundies are obscene, anti-social and hateful.

There are orthodox Jews who practice a very fundamental view of Judaism. They say that God killed the Haitians in a massive earthquake because of Gays in the military (or Lashon Hara) See: Why The Earthquake in Haiti Happened. They say that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for Mardi Gras. They have been known to murder innocent people for the sake of their beliefs They hate liberals because they allow for depravity such as gay marriage. They protest all over on behalf of their causes.

There are Jihadist Muslims who practice a very fundamental and oftentimes violent version of Islam. They wish to rid the world of infidels, including Jews. They have bombed and fired weapons and thrown rocks in favor of their cause. They hate pretty much everyone that is not exactly like them and have no desire to integrate into a democratic society.

There are environmentalists who believe in a very fundamental version of liberalism. They are super passionate about the environment and nature. They stand in front of bulldozers, destroy private property and call people names all to protect nature. They put their lives at risk for their cause and spend millions of dollars promoting their cause. They put their cause above all else (for example instead of procreating) See: Green Gone Wild.

In all these examples, the extremists make a lot of noise and find their way into the headlines. Would it be fair to associate these extreme elements with the more moderate practitioners of their ideologies? Of course not. I don’t want to be judged by the crazed acts of fundamentalist orthodox Jews and I am sure that moderate Muslims, Christian and Liberals feel the same way about the extremists in their ideologies.

Extremism is bad. Nobody likes it except the ones acting extreme. I find it disturbing that Islam is judged solely by its extreme and fairly recent activities. Prior to the 20th century, Muslims were far more benevolent to members of other religions than Christians were. Recently, extremists have become the face of Islam. I think that is unfortunate. It is our best interest to support moderate forms of Islam and help them fight against the extremists.

Are there dangerous forms of Islam? Yes. Are there dangerous forms of all faiths, beliefs and ideologies? Yes again. We should be working together to foster moderates who are tolerant of others in all walks of life.

The Mosque at Ground Zero Has A Marketing Problem

rabbifink — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:05:47 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear: Islamaphobia and Cordoba House

It seems that the Cordoba House in downtown Manhattan has cleared a major hurdle by winning a 9-0 vote of the Landmarks Conservation Commission. (NY Times link)

Conservatives and liberals seem to be at loggerheads on this particular issue. Sarah Palin made headlines with her plea that the center be blocked and fellow right wing pundits have expressed their distaste to the center. They feel it disgraces the deceased by glorifying what they believe to be the religion that caused the tragedy at Ground Zero almost 9 years ago. Liberals, on the other hand, see the center as an olive branch to Islam and think the center glorifies America, not the dangerous form of Islamic Fundamentalism that took down the Twin Towers, 3000 victims and the U.S. economy.

I can’t say whether the center is an affront or not. That’s because it varies with each person. Everyone is free to react as they choose. I can’t say one side is right and one side is wrong.

What I can say is that the center has a bad marketing plan.

The center is not a mosque. It is a massive cultural center. There is a sanctuary planned but it is a minor part of a broader institution. An institution that, according to their website attempts to bring the gap between Islam and the West. An institution that also fights for women’s rights and opportunitities within Islam. In fact, if we are to believe the Cordoba website, it is exactly what Americans (especially Conservatives) should be supporting.

From their website:

Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants – all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

So why call themselves a mosque? Bad marketing.

The center is not “at Ground Zero” either. It is 2 blocks away. If you’ve never been to Manhattan you can’t appreciate how FAR part 2 blocks in NYC are. Two blocks in Manhattan is very far. It is a few minutes walk and more importantly, it is certainly not within the line of sight. They should be saying that their center is a few minutes walk from Ground Zero. Not “at Ground Zero”.

From their website:

So the Mosque at Ground Zero is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. It is an Islamic Center in Downtown Manhattan. Is that still as offensive to those who oppose the center?

The only reasonable explanation for opposition that remains is conspiracy.

In other words, the website is a sham. The REAL purpose of Cordoba House is to spread Fundamental Islam and serve as a springboard for the continued spread of Islam in their quest for world dominance. This is Islamaphobia.

There are people who believe this to be the case. I do not.

If you are asking me, which you aren’t, I say support the Cordoba House and the brand of Islam they espouse and perhaps get involved a see it for yourself if you are not convinced. Working together will go a long way.

Rape by Deception is a Crime in Israel

rabbifink — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:39:51 +0000

An arab man lied to an Israeli woman about his ethnicity. After they “consummated the relationship” she discovered he was not Israeli, he was Arab. He was charged with rape.

He has been sentenced to 18 months in jail. He will appeal.

The headlines are scandalous.

Israeli Arab who ‘raped’ a woman says verdict ‘racist’

Sex with Jewish girl costs Arab man 18 months in Israeli jail

Israel’s Outrageous Rape Case

Over on DovBear (Israeli Court Shames Itself With Idiotic Ruling) there is a fairly predictable post and discussion about the merits of the Israeli court decision. I am certain that the conversation over there is reflective of many similar conversations around the world.

There are two points that I would like to address regarding this case.

First, the issue of consent to sex is highly volatile. On the one hand, it protects women by punishing low-lives who force themselves onto women who may be vulnerable. On the other hand it is very paternalistic. It basically tells women that “you cannot be trusted with men so the law will take care of you”.

It is not politically correct to say, but women are more vulnerable than men as a general rule. Men tend to be bigger, stronger and more aggressive. Could a woman beat me up? Yes. Could a woman rape a man? I am sure. But the history of men taking advantage of women tells me that women do need protection by the law.

Second is the inherent racism in the case. And no, I do not mean the court is racist in its ruling.

I mean the “victim”.

If the man is Israeli it is okay to sleep with him after just meeting him, but if he is Arab then it is not okay to sleep with him?

I don’t doubt that she feels this way. But what is the basis for her feeling this way? If she was very religious then perhaps she is concerned with the Jewish law of “marrying” a Jew. But I don’t think that is what it is.

I think it indicates a strong social aversion to Arabs in Israeli society. So strong that a woman who is willing to sleep with a new acquaintance would not do so if he was Arab.

The court is dealing with the facts on the ground. She would not have consented if she knew he was Arab. That legal issue deserves discussion. What I think is a more productive discussion is why she feels that way.

What factors are okay to consider before sleeping with a man and what factors are not okay? The court seems to think that ethnicity is important enough that her consent was voided. In Israel it is possible that it is that important.

Is it any wonder that Arabs feel 2nd Class in Israel?

I understand how and why that social reality came to exist.

I also think that perhaps it is more harmful than helpful at this point.

Message From Auschwitz: I Will Survive

rabbifink — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:06:50 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear: Dancing at Auschwitz

Everyone has been talking about this video.

From the description:

On a recent trip to Europe, a family of three generations (a Holocaust survivor, his daughter and his grandchildren) dance to Gloria Gaynor’s pop song – ‘I Will Survive’ at concentration camps and memorials throughout Europe.

This dance is a tribute to the tenacity of the human spirit and a celebration of life.

Is it appropriate for a survivor and his family to celebrate their survival in this manner? Everyone seems to have an opinion.

When I saw it, I was not “offended”, but then again, I am a 4th generation American. I have no Holocaust scars in my direct ancestry. It’s possible I am not as sensitive as I ought to be about this.

Having said that, I prefer to see this family as the modern day Rabbi Akiva who laughed when he saw the great Temple in ruins. When his weeping comrades asked him how he could cry at such a sight he reminded them that just as the destruction of the Temple was predicted, so too the rebuilding of the Temple and the return from exile was predicted.

Rabbi Akiva survived and he was confident that we would survive as a people. He was confident we would survive with our hopes and dreams intact even after witnessing a horrible event like the destruction of the Temple and the deaths of the thousands of Jews living in Jerusalem. The ever present optimism for the future has been a calling card for Jewish people for two millennia and Rabbi Akiva practically invented it.

On the eve of Tisha B’Av my father told me a wonderful Torah thought. At the end of the second chapter of Makkos there is an argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if a man is exiled as punishment for a negligent homicide, when his term completes he cannot return to his position of authority (like prince of the tribe) that he held before his exile. Rabbi Meir holds that one returning from exile can reclaim his position of authority. Halachically we follow Rabbi Yehuda. But Rabbi Meir was the student of Rabbi Akiva. It seems that Rabbi Akiva had integrated this lesson into his worldview and taught it to his student Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Akiva had such optimism that the Jewish people would return from their exile and reclaim the lofty position in Israel, with the Temple that he laughed when he saw its destruction.

Seems to me, these folks are students of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir. We need optimism. We need hope for the future. We need to be confident in our future. Dancing at Auschwitz tells me that these folks have that optimism.

FYI: The video has been taken off YouTube several times already for “Copyright Infringement”. There are new versions on YouTube but I bet they get taken down eventually as well. So I grabbed this video from WeJew.Com. It’s a sad commentary on our litigious society that this video was taken down…

Tisha B'Av 5770 / 2010

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:42:46 +0000

At sundown this evening, the 9th of Av, Jews all around the world will begin a 25 hour period of mourning. We mourn the loss of the great Temple in Jerusalem, and all that it symbolized. We lament the loss of our national unity and the special Temple connection. We hope and pray for a complete redemption and the messianic era of peace, harmony and sprirituality.

(Read my thoughts on Tisha B’Av from last year: Mourning The Living On The 9th of Av)

Most people are familiar with the custom to fast for 25 hours as a sign of our mourning. We suffer to try and feel what we are missing. For many people, Tisha B’Av is a fast day and nothing else.

That is tragic.

Over on DovBear, (God’s Thoughts on Tisha B’Av) my good friend Henoch has posted a very insightful anecdote from Zecharia Chapter 7:

As the second Temple was being rebuilt, the Jews had been keeping the 4 fast days related to the destruction for the last 70 years. It occurred to residents of Bavel that perhaps these fasts were obsolete. After all, the Temple was being rebuilt, so why would they continue to mourn over its destruction? They assembled a delegation to go to Jerusalem where the halachic question would be brought to the leadership that still included Neviim. The answer given by God through Zechariah Hanavi is quite surprising and would be considered completely inappropriate had anyone else given that answer.

At first the question of whether to fast or not, is ignored. Then Zechariah said in the name of God that when Jews eat at times that they deem appropriate, or fast when they decide to fast, they do so because it is what they think will serve their own interests. It isn’t necessarily for the right reasons. Zechariah essentially states that our idea of fasting misses the mark and even questions its’ sincerity. He then goes further and says in the name of God what would be a more proper approach to the subject. He says that the correct approach to this problem is to
“Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart.”
Being that the Jews ignored these basic ideas, they were exiled and scattered across the world.

God is looking at us and saying, it is quite simple, and it has always been quite simple. I don’t want false piety or even grand programs that are limited to fasting and davening. If you want to do them, that is your decision. But don’t lose sight of what I want. God says “I want honesty, compassion and love”.

We cannot allow the secondary customs and practices to become primary. We cannot become so wrapped up in our customs, such as fasting, and forget the direct commandments from God.

We know what we need to do.

Please do not merely fast this year on Tisha B’Av. Take the lessons of Zecharia 7 and try to be the best we can be in all of our actions.

For a summary of the laws and customs of Tisha B’Av click here: Tisha B’Av – Aish.com.

A Must Read Maharsha

rabbifink — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:58:52 +0000

Head over to DovBear for this post: An Appropriate Maharsha (If you don’t know who the Maharsha is, don’t bother…) Related posts: My View on Kaparos Bar Mitzva DIscussion If You Like To Read Jewish Blogs Jewish iPhone Apps By RustyBrick Read Maimonides’ Personally Authorized Copy of His Mishnah Torah

27 Years Is A Harsh Sentence But Not The Only Harsh Sentence

rabbifink — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:11:03 +0000

Cross-posted to DovBear: Harsher Sentences Are Not The Answer

This is what the shoe feels like when it’s on the other foot.

For decades, right-wing / republican / conservative / Judeo-Christian Valuists have talked a big game when it comes to fighting crime. Running on “Law and Order” platforms and promising harsh sentences for criminals was a sure way to gain support.

On the other hand, bleeding heart liberals have been trying to model the justice system after the softer Euro sentencing structures.

Traditionally, middle class white people support Law and Order style justice. Harsh sentences make them feel safer and they are less likely to know someone who will be incarcerated, thus they are removed from the effects of the harsh sentencing of criminals.

Lower class folks usually support softer punishments. They are the ones who are more likely to have friends and relatives in the justice system. For many of them, the softer the punishment, the sooner they get their daddy back.

It was real easy for us middle class white (Jewish) people to support strict sentencing guidelines when it didn’t really affect us. But after witnessing one of our own fall prey to the system we helped create I am sure we all feel differently. (Of course I am aware that there are some middle class white Jews who vote democrat and support liberal causes, I am talking to everyone else.)

27 years is a long time. Rubashkin is a crook but his sentence is very harsh. We now feel what lower class communities have felt for so long. Some of us now think the system is out to get us. They have felt that way all along. Some of us now are horrified by the sentencing guidelines and the leeway given to particularly strict judges. They have been saying this is a problem all along.

Perhaps it is time for our community to more fully support softer punishments for all criminals. In some states (like mine – California) we are spending millions and millions of dollars locking up “3 Strikes” criminals for LIFE (including non-violent, minor felonies). That is even harsher than Rubashkin’s sentence. If we are outraged over his sentence let that outrage spill over into more socially conscious, activist role and help modify our current justice system.

But please, for intellectual honesty’s sake, be consistent. If you think Rubashkin got a raw deal, do some research and learn about how other people who made mistakes in their teens will spend their entire lives in jail because of America’s love of retribution. Help everyone who got shafted by the system and let’s try and prevent this from happening again, to anyone.

Oh How I Yearn For The Anti-Semites of Yore

rabbifink — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:11:04 +0000

Cross-posted to DovBear here:

There is a healthy nostalgia built into Judaism. “Chadesh yameni k’kedem” – renew our days to the way things were, we say. Of course, like any good thing, too much nostalgia is a bad thing.

After reading the famous case of Brandenburg v. Ohio I find myself pining for the anti-Jewish sentiment as expressed in 60′s as opposed to today.

Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio. At a KKK rally, men dressed in robes and hoods burned a cross and made public declarations of hate. Among their offensive epithets:

“Bury the niggers”, “Freedom for the whites”, “Let’s get them back to the dark garden”,

(see FN1 in the Court opinion for the complete list) all clearly anti-black statements that are highly offensive.

Of course, no good KKK rally is complete without some anti-Jewish fun as well. These KKK Jew haters proclaimed:

“Send the Jews back to Israel”

Today’s anti-Jewish proclamations are more likely to echo Helen Thomas and say “Get the Jews out of Israel”.

Oh how I yearn for the anti-semites of yore. They were so much nicer to us…

Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic?

rabbifink — Fri, 14 May 2010 05:55:11 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear. More discussion there. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been reading about the Rubashkin saga for months. What began with a Federal raid at a meat processing plant to ferret out hundreds of illegal alien employees is now culminating with a federal and state trial. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been hearing that the raid was “disproportionate” and fueled by anti-semitism.

If you are like me you have been hearing that he was denied bail because of an anti-semitic fear that Rubashkin was a flight risk and would flee to Israel.

If you are like me, you have been hearing that his federal sentencing recommendation was anti-semitic. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been hearing how the county jail was anti-semitic in not providing food that was kosher “to Rubashkin’s standards” and not permitting him to wear religious garb (tzitzis / tzitzit). (Link)

I have three things I want to say.

1) I feel terribly for Rubashkin. I feel terribly for any criminal who is sentenced to prison but more-so when the criminal is a family member of mine. As a fellow Jew, Rubashkin is family and it pains me to see him in this state. I support asking for leniency is a mentshlach way.

2) Rubashkin is the cause of much of the animosity towards him from the prosecution and judiciary. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT because he is Jewish, nor is it anti-semitic.

3) Even those who cry anti-semitism in this case are grossly misusing the term.

I think #1 is a well represented opinion throughout the Jewish community. It does not require any more attention from me. Consider me to have said “ditto”.

Number 2 is something that has been so wildly misunderstood it almost seems blatant. The reason Rubashkin’s plant was raided was NOT due to a plan hatched in the bowels of a Ku Klux Klan facility. The reason his plant was raided was because he snubbed the Unions by hiring illegals and the Unions were none-too-happy. They made the infractions known to the Feds and they raided the plant. Were there too many helicopters and fancy weapons? Probably. Was it anti-semitic? Probably not. The people who make these kinds of choices don’t, actually, CAN’T have vendettas against minorities. This is the Federal Government of the most benevolent host the Jewish people have ever had. Use your noodle people! There is no conspiracy! Who was president at the time? Our best friend George W. Bush. The federal agents were in his employ. Dare we think that the “anti-semitic raid” was orchestrated by our dear friend? Of course not.

Rubashkin was considered a flight-risk because agents found $10,000 cash in a packed bag with passports. Under normal circumstances that is a flight-risk. A packed bag with cash and passports could be reasonably interpreted as a “just-in-case” bag. Maybe it was a “just-in-case Moshiach comes bag”. I am willing to believe that was the case. But what would you think if you saw that bag and he wasn’t a frum Jew? Is it anti-semitism to draw the logical conclusion from finding that bag and denying him bail? Certainly not.

The sentencing recommendation was well within Federal guidelines. I was talking about the case to a lawyer friend of mine who works for the Court of Appeals and who knew nothing about the case. I told him some of the facts about the bank fraud. His immediate reaction was, “that’s a life sentence”. He didn’t know the crook was a Jew. He didn’t know the crook was accused of other crimes. He only knew about the bank fraud and he said “that’s a life sentence”. Is he anti-semitic? Who cares?! He didn’t know the cases involved a Jew when he said a life sentence was what the crook deserved!

Also, much has been made of “comparable criminals”. It is an unfair comparison because Rubashkin has not been cooperative. He was not willing to accept any plea deals. He maintains his complete, 100% innocence and is a difficult person for the court to deal with. He has many special requests and claims he is being victimized. He has offered only one half-baked apology since this saga began and has not taken any responsibility.

While in jail, Rubashkin has made special requests. Some have been honored and some have not. Some of the requests that have been honored and he has stated that he not satisfied with the kashrus of the food. It is kosher, just not kosher enough. Is it anti-semitic if they give him kosher food that most orthodox Jews would eat?

Also, Rubashkin will not walk without wearing Tzitzis. He states that his religion will not allow him to walk. So he has been carried around so that he will not violate this religious law. The problem is that he is with ignorant of the law or is just trying to be annoying. The law is that when one wears a four-cornered garment (think of a poncho or rectangular wrap) the garment must have a certain formula of strings attached to the garment at the corners. One is not required to wear such a garment. However it has become customary to wear one of these garments with the strings attached for prayer as well as during the day. But if you are not wearing a four-cornered garment the law does not require that you wear the strings (like a button-down shirt or blazer don’t need the strings). So why is Rubashkin making a stink out of an issue that is not religious? Is it anti-semitic if the jail does not cooperate with this?

I think it is clear enough that for every “anti-semitic” act against Rubashkin, there is a plausible non-anti-semitic explanation as well. Let’s just stop with the anti-semitism cries.

As for #3, I dare you to look a Holocaust survivor in the eye and call this anti-semitism. Try telling it to a Jew who was thrown out of Spain and Portugal for not bowing to the Cross. Or how about Jews who were slaughtered during pogroms? Being prosecuted for actual crimes is not anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is hatred and cruelty to Jews for no reason other than the fact that they are Jewish. That is not the case here.

I have more to say about anti-semitism in general. Stay tuned…

Is The Cartoon of Elena Kagan Anti-Semitic?

rabbifink — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:03:22 +0000

A very similar post has been cross-posted to DovBear. More discussion there.

Nothing like a Supreme Court of the United States nomination to get me to blog again.

Elena Kagan has been nominated for the SCOTUS. I have no opinion about her. I do have an opinion about some of the people opposing her…

I have been planning a brief series on anti-semitism. This post will be the first of a few that deal with various specifics and nuances of anti-semitism in my opinion.

Have you seen the cries of anti-semitism connected with Kagan? They come from Orthodox Jews who have trouble dealing with their own insecurities. Why?

Most RW Jews are very conservative politically. Kagan is not. Her existence and certainly her appointment the SCOTUS is not viewed favorably in their eyes. Subconsciously, they need a way to protest her appointment and the first thing that pops into their minds is the old “anti-semitism card”.

People point to the caricature of her as anti-semitic. People think that it is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda.

It’s not.

Nazi propaganda was general. It showed Jews as having certain features and overemphasized those features in order to make a separate point. “Jews steal”, “Jews are like vermin”, “Jews run the world”, etc. The caricature was to paint a villain with gross features and then label the villain with gross acts. It works better than painting the villain with gross acts with a face like Clooney or Pitt…

The cartoon of Kagan is just a cartoon. It exaggerates her features because those are HER features. It’s the same way a Leno cartoon has a huge chin and Bush cartoon has a squat head and long ears. It pokes fun at their appearance but is in no way anti-long chin or anti-squat head with long ears. Accentuating Kagan’s features in a cartoon can’t be off limits because she happens to be Jewish.

A second thing about all this anti-semitism talk is very ironic. I have not seen any reports from mainstream media that even mentions that Kagan is Jewish. It is not an issue for most people. Why do we think that it is an issue? It’s like we invent an issue to get upset about. Kagan was chosen because of her credentials and the diversity she brings to the court. Doesn’t that champion minorities like Jews? How is that anti-semitic!?

The last thing I want to address is the complaint lodged by a commenter on DovBear’s post. Mamzer Talmid Chacham said “I’d still like it better if he nominated someone who was actually a judge”. It so happens that one of the greatest SCOTUS justices of all time, Justice Warren, was not a judge. One large criticism of the SCOTUS is the seemingly similar paths all the justices took to get to the court. Choosing Kagan adds another element of much needed diversity to the court.

The Library of Congress and Maimonidies Disagree

rabbifink — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:01:12 +0000

One of my absolute favorite places in the world is the Library of Congress in DC. The architecture, decor and opulence of the building is stunning and I love it.

There is however one part of the Library of Congress which I vehemently must disagree with.

What part? Stay tuned…

Over on DovBear, there has been a running discussion as to the meaning of the 8th Principle of Maimonidies.

According to Maimonidies, in order to be an observant Jew, one must believe in a number of tenets. These 13 tenets are not observable or provable by scientific measure. They require suspension of disbelief or more accurately – belief.

The simple reading of the 8th Tenet seems problematic to many people.

“I believe with complete faith that the entire Torah which is now in our possession is the same as that which was given to Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher), may he rest in peace.”

Many assume this means that Maimonidies believed the 5 Books of Moses were unchanged from Sinai. This is patently false. The Talmud itself recognizes that there are discrepencies that existed in different Torah scrolls over time.

To see the more precise version of this tenet head over to DovBear’s blog: The Rambam’s 8th Principle According to R’ Yaakov Weinberg

The main point of the post is that Maimonidies holds that we must believe that Moses was not an author, he was a scribe. Moses did not add an ounce of creativity to the Torah. He was just writing what he was told.

Is this rational? No. But this is what we are required to believe.

In the Great Hall in the Library of Congress, there are tablets on the slope toward the ceiling. The Library of Congress has sixteen such tablets around the Great Hall ceiling and each has the name of a famous author. The names are DANTE, HOMER, MILTON, BACON, ARISTOTLE, GOETHE, SHAKESPEARE, MOLIERE, MOSES, HERODOTUS, CERVANTES, HUGO, SCOTT, COOPER, LONGFELLOW, TENNYSON, GIBBON, and BANCROFT.

Is the Library of Congress required to believe in the 8th Principle of Maimonidies? No.

They can hold that Moses was an author along with the other 15 literary giants.

To me, it’s just a mistake and a disagreement between the Library of Congress and Maimonidies.

FAVOR: If you have been to the LOC and have a picture of what I am describing – PLEASE email it to me. If you are going to the LOC sometime soon, PLEASE take a photo for me! Thanks.

UPDATE: Reader, Mark has emailed me this photo, thanks:

Pacific Jewish Center Featured on MSNBC.com

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:38:48 +0000

Six weeks ago, two well-known journalists, David Horsey and Nancy LeVine popped into the Shul on the Beach. It was Purim and they wanted to take pictures, talk with me and some of our Shul members and join in our Purim Celebration.

Never ones to turn down inviting strangers into the Shul, we welcomed them.

As I wrote at the time, our Purim Celebration was really special as we welcomed anyone and everyone off the boardwalk into our Shul. Read more here: Pacific Jewish Center Purim Celebration Recap February 28, 2010

Nancy took beautiful candid photos and David kind of blended in with the rest of us talking to us and learning about the Pacific Jewish Center and the festival of Purim.

Purim is a funny time to be introduced to new people. Things are a little different on Purim. But David managed to get to know us in a way that I never thought an outsider could.

Nancy and David produced a wonderful photo-film of their visit. It is part of their Escape Into America Series. The series is incredible. They have managed to find a lot of soul throughout their travels and it really comes through in their work.

In the photo-film about us, they did a really super job cutting through it all and finding the soul of our shul.

There are a couple things in the photo-film that are not perfectly precise, but that’s okay. (2 minor corrections: 1- I did mention to David that Purim costumes were likely borrowed for the Venice Carnival in the 15th Century and yet costumes fit in well with the themes of the day, 2- I am not sure I actually said that the Shul was in danger of disappearing – it wasn’t, rather, it could have been on that path).

Other than a couple minor mistakes the photo-film really captures the essence of Purim in our Shul as well as much of the essence of who we are at Pacific Jewish Center.

The video stars everyone, but Yosef Beithalachmi (aka Mr. Pickles) and Ashi Bersin are featured in the voice-over. Great job!

Tune in to the video below:

Visit Escape into America on MSNBC.com to see the other films and support this wonderful venture: The Story of Ester

Visit Nancy LeVine’s website to see a higher resolution video and other videos and photos from her portfolio: Browneyesgallery.com

Visit DovBear.blogspot.com to see more comments from viewers: Look who’s famous now!

Thank you David and Nancy for visiting with us and sharing our experience with the world.

Also thank you to the entire Pacific Jewish Center community for welcoming David and Nancy and cooperating with them.

Finally, thank you to Leslie Friedman for organizing their visit.

What Is The Difference Between Kitniyos and Gebrukts?

rabbifink — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:16:16 +0000

If you don’t know what those words mean…

…find something else to read.

I suggest this: 300th Post: Some Of The Most Interesting of the First 300

If you do… read my latest on DovBear.

300th Post: Some Of The Most Interesting of the First 300

rabbifink — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:10:13 +0000

The World Celebrates 300 Posts on finkorswim.com

Today we are celebrating 300 posts on my blog. Hence, the fireworks. (To see the picture I DID NOT use, click here.) When I started blogging 15 months ago I never dreamed I would ever have 300 posts or a respectable, regular readership. As you all know, most blogs rise and fall quicker than the President’s polling numbers. A big reason I have been able to maintain this blog because of you the readers. So I thank you.

I have compiled a nice list of posts worth reading. For some of you it will be review, for others it will be interesting to see some of the things you may have missed. As always I welcome feedback.

Enjoy.

The Real Orthoprax Issue

rabbifink — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:17:22 +0000

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear. For more discussion, click here.

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is making headlines with his front page Jewish Press article in which he thoroughly disposes of Orthopraxy and ousts the Orthoprax from Modern Orthodoxy.

For a thorough fisking of the main parts of the article go to XGH’s blog, this is his area of expertise.

What Rabbi Pruzansky’s article made me ponder is the relevance of Orthopraxy to the average Frum Jew. In my opinion there are two kinds of Orthoprax Jews. There are Orthoprax theologians and Orthoprax by Default. The theologians are those that “believe” in Orthopraxy. XGH and others are the most vocal of this group. This is the group Rabbi Pruzansky heaps his disdain upon. He blames them for all of the problems he sees in his community and seems to think that if you sin, it must be because really you are Orthoprax. You must be the “non-believer in our midst”. It is unseemly, and I do not wish to address his comments. (It’s ironic because the Orthoprax, by dint of their theology value the acts of Judaism MORE than the beliefs of Judaism. While the Orthodox need to balance the two and one could be Orthodox and still sin all the time. That is why we have Yom Kippur and the mitzva of Teshuva. In other words, I would expect an Orthodox Jew to sin at least as often as an Orthoprax. But I digress.)

I think that within the Frum spectrum, from LWMO all the way through RW Yeshivish and Chasidish, there are many “closet” Orthoprax by Default Jews. I don’t mean to say, they are Orthoprax on purpose. I mean that they practice Judaism purely out of habit or social pressure, or conditioning. These are the Frum people you see all the time that are simply uneducated or uninformed on the basic tenets of their beliefs. Sure, they may have memorized the 13 Ikkarim, or other formulae for their beliefs, but their actions speak way louder than their thoughts. They can’t articulate why they do what they do. For many people, the issues of hashkafa and emunah are not part of their lives. They do all the mitzvos they can, they follow halacha, but it is void of any “theology”. It is just their “lifestyle”. That is also Orthoprax. And that is something that is common, prevalent and ubiquitous throughout any sect of Orthodox Judaism.

This is not ideal. But it is reality. Rabbi Pruzansky seems to assume that all Frum Jews who practice halachic Judaism are familiar with their “dox”. But they are not. And sadly, these Jews do not even want to be Orthoprax, but they are by default. Instead of worrying about the people that have defined their beliefs as separate from traditional Frum Judaism, we would be better served helping the closet Orthoprax who WANT to be Orthodox become Orthodox in the truest sense of the word.

Our system has become great at creating robots. I call them Orthoprax by Default. We can do better…

Why The Earthquake in Haiti Happened

rabbifink — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:01:11 +0000

This post has been crossposted to DovBear. More discussion there.

Since the Earthquake in Haiti many have attempted to figure out “why” the tragedy occurred.

There are 4 prominent versions going around the web right now.

Rabbi Shafran Version 1: God punished the people of Haiti because of evil speech.
Rabbi Shafran Version 2: We don’t know why God punished the people of Haiti but the lesson is that we should learn is not to speak evil speech.
Rabbi Levin: The earthquake and Tsunami and 9/11 happened because of Gays in the military.
Rabbi Feldman: We can’t know why the earthquake happened, but it happened for “a reason”.

What has been missing from this is a more rational approach predicated on the teachings of Rav Yaakov Weinberg Ztz”l Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael.

Let’s start with a hypothetical question.

Gerald is driving through the desert. He gets lost and runs out of fuel. He gets out of the car to start walking to find a gas station. He wanders for a little while. Eventually he runs out of water. He dehydrates and eventually dies in the desert.

Why did he die?

That is easy. He died because he ran out of water in a desert. The rules of nature that God created and recreates every moment dictate that when a man has no water in a desert he will dehydrate and probably die shortly thereafter. God does not bend or adjust the rules of nature to save him. Nor should God bend the rules of nature. The relationship God has with the world is that of a hidden God. God hides behind the mask of nature and does not show Himself.

There is a fault line the lies beneath Port Au Prince. It was suggested by geologists in late 2008 that there could be a severe earthquake in Haiti as a result of this fault line. In January 2010 the plates along the fault line shifted. A massive earthquake ensued. Thousands of people died and many more were injured.

Why did they die?

That is also easy. They died because there was an earthquake. The rules of nature that God created and recreates at every moment dictate that when tectonic plates shift it can cause a massive earthquake. God does not bend or adjust the rules of nature to stop the earthquake. Nor should God bend the rules of nature. The relationship God has with the world is that of a hidden God. God hides behind the mask of nature and does not show Himself.

What about the stories in Chumash and Tanach (Old Testament) that report miracles to save individuals or groups of people?

Once in a while God does bend the rules of nature. This is rare and only happens in extreme circumstances. We call this a miracle. It is really a misnomer because everything is a miracle. Nature is a miracle just as much as the supernatural. But we only recognize or would recognize the supernatural miraculous. Miracles can happen, but we don’t rely on miracles nor do we expect miracles as part of the usual system and order of the universe. The universe follows the rules of nature that God created and recreates every moment.

What about the words of Chazal (Talmudic Rabbis) that blame natural disasters on sin?

I can’t answer with certainty but there are a few options:

- For lack of scientific information they did not realize that earthquakes or other phenomena were “natural” and supposed they were supernatural events thus requiring a Divine reason.

- They were referring to a place and time where God did intervene on a constant basis.

- They were speaking polemically and urging Klal Yisrael to improve their ways and as a way of admonishing them they used exegesis to connect disaster with sin.

- They were misquoted or quoted out of context.

Then there is the Rambam. In hilchos Taanis, the Rambam states that when harm befalls the tzibur it incumbent upon klal yisrael to do teshuva and attribute the suffering the “way of the world” rather the bad things that happened were because of their evil sins.

This has been misquoted and misapplied in many instances. The Rambam is talking about a tragedy that happens to the tzibur. The tzibur refers to the Jewish community. So a harm among the a specific Jewish community is the time that we must attribute the harm to OUR sins.

What Rabbis Shafran Version 1, Feldman and Levin are doing is trying to use this Rambam in an instance of a tragedy that befell ANOTHER group of people. The earthquake was not a disaster that happened to the Jewish tzibur. It happened to another tzibur. Thus, the Rambam does not apply.

When would the Rambam apply? At most a tragedy that targets the tzibur. Most strictly constructed it would be when a harm is specific to the Jewish people.

So what are we supposed to do when tragedy strikes? When there is a Hurricane like Katrina, a Tsunami like there was in Southeast Asia or Earthquake like in Haiti?

We work on our compassion. We work on our empathy. We help as much as we can. We remember that life is fleeting and it can all end in a moment. We try to reenergize our relationships. We improve in our avodas Hashem. We find a way to use the tragedy to inspire us. It is personal.

For anyone to assume they know why this tragedy happened fails on three counts.

1) It did not happen to us. It happened to someone else. Do we believe in a God who punishes another party for OUR sins?

2) Maybe it did not happen for a reason? If it was natural then how are you going to apply some sin as the cause for nature? Do you blame sin every time a lion eats a gazelle in the African plain? How about when an innocent bystander is killed by a drunk driver? Did the bystander “deserve it”?

3) Even if it did happen for a reason, who are you to tell me why it happened? You think YOU know? Your puny little brain can figure out why God acts in the way He does? You know all the factors that go into “causing a natural disaster”? At best it is presumptuous at worst it is extreme arrogance bordering on apikorsus.

For anyone to guess why this happened fails on another count.

Nevuah (prophecy) ended thousands of years ago. A Navi (prophet) was like a spiritual doctor, one was able to see a Navi and ask why bad things were happening to you and the Navi could tell you why. The Navi was connected to God. That is over. It ended a long time ago. I am suspect of anyone claiming to know what God is “thinking” because they have no way of knowing.

Trying to pretend like we know why the earthquake happened, even if we assume it happened for a reason, is wrong.

But at least Rabbi Shafran Version 2 and Rabbi Feldman are telling US to improve our lives in the wake of the tragedy.

Only one goofball has the gall to tell OTHER people how to act in response to the tragedy. Only Levin has the audacity to tell the Government of the USA that it’s “their fault” this happened. Only Levin completely abrogates himself and places the blame on something that is external to him and his group.

It is akin to telling a grieving mother that her son who was run over by a car was run over because the lady across the street had an affair. Ridiculous. Irresponsible. Self-righteous. Idiotic. Moronic. (Help me out here… I am sure there are more words…)

In summary, there are varying levels of what I believe to be errors in the wake of this tragedy. The least egregious is trying to figure what the precise message of the earthquake is. The most egregious is telling a 3rd party that they caused the tragedy of another.

My view, as I stated just after the earthquake, and the view of my Rebbeim is that the tragedy was a natural disaster. There was no malicious intent or direct message being sent to the people of Haiti or anyone else for that matter. However, it is useful for us to use the incident as inspiration to improve our lives and live each moment we are fortunate to be alive as a way of making the world a better place.

Postscript: A worthwhile read is Rabbi Dov Kramer’s approach which is very similar to what is written here just comes from a different direction.

Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Superbowl Ad is Heartwarming and Reckless

rabbifink — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:03:53 +0000

This post has been crossposted to DovBear.

UPDATE: RETRACTION AND APOLOGY HERE

The most well-known athlete in America might be Tim Tebow.

Tebow is possibly the most celebrated, successful college football player of all time. He was a 2 time national champion with the Florida Gators and a Heisman Trophy winner. His success, as well as his good looks and supernatural physique has made him a household name across the United States. Oh, there is one more thing, Tebow is the son of missionaries who is very religious and (at this point) celibate.

Tebow has used his star power to advocate for Christianity. He spent a couple of summers working with missionaries in the Far East and has always been vocal about his religiousness. Tim Tebow is an athlete who is using his star power to make a difference in the world. We may not agree with his message, but he is certainly a better role model than felon Gilbert Arenas or even LeBron James.

During the upcoming Super Bowl, Tebow will be featured in a $2.6 Million ad for a strong Pro-Life Organization called Focus on the Family. This has set off a firestorm of reactions from groups that oppose Focus in the Famliy, like the National Organization for Women (don’t you love these names?) who do not approve the message of the ad. Additionally, advocate groups like PETA are up in arms because they have been denied Superbowl air time for their causes.

Honestly, the reason CBS approved this ad are probably related to the economy. IF you’re willing to pay $2.6 Million for an ad in the economy – they’ll take your money.

What is interesting to me about all this are the circumstances of Tim Tebow’s birth. In the ad Tim is expected to tell the story of his mother’s pregnancy. Mrs. Tebow became very ill during a mission to the Philippines and was advised to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. She ignored the doctor, Tim was born and Mrs. Tebow survived.

First, Jewish Law does not share the same views as Christian Law on abortion. In a situation where the mother’s life is in danger, many traditional authorities hold that the mother MUST abort the pregnancy. There is an assumption that fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews agree on abortion. That is just not true.

Second, even those that hold that abortion is immoral and should never be allowed, is this a wholesome message? To ignore a doctor’s strong recommendation? Isn’t reckless? Don’t we look at Scientology with disdain when a life is lost because of their refusal to see a doctor? What if Mrs. Tebow lost her life in the pregnancy and Tim dies before birth?

It seems that advocating for the sanctity of life is a fair cause to support, but advocating in a manner that breeds recklessness… That seems irresponsible.

Orthodox Jews Are Not Sneetches

rabbifink — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:44:26 +0000

That is Sneetches, not snitches. For Jewish snitches you can read my post on Mesira, the Jewish Informant. Sneetches are a Dr. Seuss invention that teach us on of the simplest, yet profound lessons in bias, peer-pressure, segregation and of course capitalism. It is one of my favorite Dr. Seuss books.

Yesterday I wrote about the portrayal of chasidic Jews in The Good Wife.

I cross-posted a portion of the post to DovBear and a discussion developed about the nuanced differences within the Orthodox Jewish community. Different style hats, kippas and other subtle changes within each group exist and commenter G*3 thinks that these differences are like the differences between the sneetches.

I disagree.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the story I have copied the Wikipedia summary:

Sneetches are a group of vaguely avian yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a green star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the “in crowd”, while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey.

In the story, a “fix-it-up chappie” named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears, driving a cart of strange machines. He offers the Sneetches without stars a chance to have them by going through his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their method for discriminating between Sneetches. Then McBean tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars. The Sneetches formerly with stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special.

However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,

“until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew

whether this one was that one or that one was this one

or which one was what one… or what one was who.”

This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that “you can’t teach a Sneetch,” the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends. - Wikipedia

The reason Sneetches are not the same as different kippas in the Orthodox Jewish community is because there was nothing actually different about the sneetches with stars or without stars. They were the exact same creatures with one external difference. This is true of humanity. We are all the same on the inside to an extent, we tend to think the outside means a whole lot, when really it does not mean anything. That is the lesson of the Sneetches.

Within groups however, there are cultural, social and even theological differences. Sometimes an external symbol is used to show that there are nuanced differences that are meaningful. Like a chasidic Jew will dress differently from another Orthodox Jew because he does a different culture and slightly different theology. The external symbol only demonstrates that he is different. It is not the defining difference.

The Sneetches only difference was their stars or lack-thereof. Within cultural sub-groups there may be real, meaningful differences. It is okay for them to show these differences by dressing or acting differently. So long as we don’t give meaning to the external factor we can even point out the differences. Once we start to think the external difference actually means something, then we get into a Sneetches problem.

I think the subtle differences are good. They help people find other people with similar culture, social and theological sensitivities as themselves. It would be a travesty to limit oneself to people who are exactly the same as they are, but external differences don’t cause that. Foolish people cause that.

No God Is Top Trending Topic On Twitter

rabbifink — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:14:00 +0000

Twitter has a sidebar with the top trending topics on Twitter at any given moment.

As of this very second the #1 Trending Topic on Twitter is “No God“.

I just thought that was really interesting.

And that is a good reason for a “Fail Whale” to lead this post…

More discussion on DovBear.

Crosses Honor Fallen Soldiers of All Faiths

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:01:43 +0000

We took the family to Santa Monica Pier on Sunday and our six year old son proved to be smarter than a Supreme Court Justice!

It is so beautiful to walk along the beach and observe all the excitement along the boardwalk and pier. As always, we had a great time in Santa Monica.

For the last few years there has been a protest / exhibit just north of the pier. The protestors are against war in general, the Iraq war in specific and pretty much the entire defense budget of the United States.

They call it Arlington West and they have set up a faux graveyard in the sand representing the fallen soldiers in what they call a criminal war.

It can be quite powerful when you see it.

As we walked by the lines and lines of crosses on this occasion, my 6 year old son asks, “How do they know all the soldiers who died were Christian? If they were Jewish or Muslim or ‘nothing’ they probably wouldn’t want a cross.”

Excellent point kiddo! Score one for the six year old.

In fact you may have heard about this exact issue arising in the Supreme Court of the United States in Salazar v. Buono. The issue in the case is an eight-foot high cross that was erected as a memorial to fallen soldiers in foreign wars.

The case made recent headlines when Justice Scalia could not fathom that a non-Christian would perhaps be offended by a Christian symbol as a memorial for the dead. The exchange between Justice Scalia and ACLU lawyer Peter J. Eliasburg went something like this:

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that — is that –

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that’s actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn’t say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that’s why the Jewish war veterans –

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It’s the — the cross is the — is the most common symbol of — of — of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn’t seem to me — what would you have them erect? A cross — some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew. (Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my — the point of my — point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don’t feel honored by this cross. This cross can’t honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.

(Credit: Huffington Post)

DovBear posted about this last week (Impeach Scalia) click for discussion there.

What amazes me is how my 6 year old son can see something so patently obvious and yet Justice Scalia can’t seem to process the concept…

Incredible.

President Obama's New Hardware: Nobel Peace Prize

rabbifink — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:19:40 +0000

Wow, two semi-political posts in a row. For a non-partisan blog that is a lot.

But once again, it would be impossible to ignore this elephant in the room.

Optimistic at best presumptuous at worse, President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize award really pushes the envelope of credibilty.

I am pretty much in 100% agreement with two of my favorite bloggers on this one so I will link to their posts.

DovBear nails it (as nearly always) and is most worried that the Nobel Peace Prize has been transformed into a political stunt.

Conversations in Klal writes about the real (wrong) lesson here, that we can be rewarded for promises with no results.

My thoughts are along the same lines as both.

First, is this prize even worth anything anymore?

Isn’t a mandatory annual award cheapened by the fact that it must be awarded yearly with no regard for it being deserved? Doesn’t sound very meaningful to me.

My proposal is that when someone earns the award, give it to them. But don’t force-feed the public a manufactered awardee purely for the sake of awarding the prize. If no-one wins, no-one gets the prize.

Second, I am really concerned with the lesson being taught. Prizes must be earned. I wrote about this a while back when I wrote about a great cartoon in the New Yorker. It is symptomatic of our generation that we reward prematurely and place people on pedestals before they have climbed atop the pedestal on their own.

We should allow things to progress organically and give projects time to breath and develop.

Patience is a virtue. It is time to put patience back in our society.

Authentic Judaism and Authentic Charity

rabbifink — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:10 +0000

This post is really two Public Service Announcements.

Please read both and if you are able to help in any way possible, it is much appreciated.

One great thing about blogging is the opportunity to connect with other people for the sake of an important cause. Today, I present you with two important causes.

First, there is a blogger who writes vitriolic, hate laced blog posts against anyone with whom he disagrees. He does so under the guise of Authentic Judaism. He makes no real arguments, just yells loudly at those he views as a threat (read: anyone who thinks differently than he). Apparently, he thinks that God spoke to him directly and gave him Torah and nobody else. A number of bloggers are trying to snatch the Google search result ranking from his blog.

I am here to help.

More importantly, DovBear is looking for some kind souls to help a family in desperate financial need. The economic downturn has claimed some more victims and from what I understand, their situation is dire. It is really easy to help, Just click here and click donate in the upper right hand sidebar and donate just a little money. Type in the amount you can give and indicate it is for #famliyneedsdough. If you can give just a few dollars it would make a tremendous difference to this family. Every penny donated will be given directly to the needy family.

I appreciate any relief you can provide.

Essay: The Oral Law in Judaism

rabbifink — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:38:01 +0000

This essay was inspired by a recent post on DovBear. I have cross posted this post there as well. Head over there for more discussion.

What follows is my understanding of The Oral Law and its transmission to us. This article does not attempt to validate or prove its transmission as fact, rather it explains just what is being transmitted when we refer to Torah SheBaal Peh (TSBP).

I am sure there are plenty of maamarei Chazal that are not 100% congruent with this approach. I am also sure that there are many maamarei Chazal that do jive with this approach. I have spent many hours studying and analyzing the concept of TSBP and what follows is what I believe to be a rational, coherent, non-apologetic approach.

Much of this essay is accessible in audio format by clicking here.

The Torah preceded the world. One tradition tell us that God looked into the Torah and created the world. That means that the Torah contains within it the spiritual genetic code of the world and the world is a physical manifestation of that code. Another metaphor would be a blueprint. All the information necessary to build is in the blueprint, yet it is merely ink and paper. What can this mean? God looked at the stories of Adam and Eve and created the world? Or God looked at the sale of Joseph and created the word? Impossible. The metaphor does not even make sense. I believe Chazal are telling us that Torah is not the stories or even laws in the Chumash. “Torah” refers to the all encompassing Oral Law (this idea is attributed to Rambam). In other words, the Oral Law refers to the natural and supernatural rules of the universe that manifested themselves in a physical sense once God put them into motion during “Creation”.

What this means is that the Torah and our universe are really two sides of one coin. The spiritual code on one side and the physical manifestation on the other side. Thus, someone could potentially rewrite the spiritual code by examining the physical manifestation side. Just as with a blueprint, a talented architect could possibly rewrite a blueprint by examining a building a talented spiritualist would be capable of figuring out the spiritual code the world is made of.

This spiritual code contains within it the natural rules of our universe and some of those rules are recommended limitations on human activity designed to help a person maximize their existence in the world. In this light, the Torah is a guide that gives the physical world its characteristics and contains the instructions for living in that world.

A few individuals were in tune with this reality and implemented some of the Torah’s concepts into their lives. Shem, Ever, Noach and Enosh were a few of the first people who were able to glean spiritual rules from their observations of the world.

Abraham was the first to grasp enough of the code for God to choose him to begin a nation of people to whom God would eventually charge with keeping and teaching this code. Slowly, Abraham taught these concepts to whomever would listen. The Abrahamic family was also aware of these Torah rules and whether they kept them or not is not relevant. They knew them and may have practiced them.

Upon Abraham’s family being enslaved in Egypt, the concepts and their rules became more and more forgotten. The exodus occurred just before the point of no return. The point that Chazal call the 49th level of impurity. The slaves were just as Egyptian as their slave-masters save for 3 (or 4) areas. Such, a large nation of people would need a guide book to remind them of their Abrahamic, monotheistic, Torah tradition. The Bnei Yisrael left Egypt for the sole purpose of receiving these instructions in the form of the Torah.

At Sinai, God gave Moses the entire code. This code included the spiritual rules, the laws, the stories (which all contain important moral and quasi-historical lessons) as well as all the information necessary to live according to those laws. God then gave Moses a written version of notes to this code. These notes were the bare minimum necessary to reconstruct the entire code as God gave it to Moses.

At this point, Moses has all the information in his head and gives the people this written book of notes that we call the Written Law or Torah SheBiksav (TSBK). As time progresses Moses added (probably divinely inspired) notes to the end of the TSBK to complete the books. The Jewish people try to live a lifestyle as Moses taught them according to the code and had the notes in TSBK to help them remember their obligations. As we are taught at the start of Ethics of our Fathers, Moses “kibbel” (received) the “Torah” (including the TSBP) (and again this does not mean the Chumash, why would there need to be a mesora for that if it was written) and gave it all to Joshua, who gave it to the elders etc. There was a central Torah authority who could resolve disputes. Originally, it was a one man show starring Moses. But at the behest of Jethro, some delegation gave Torah authority to others. There was no machlokes (disagreement) among the Torah authority as Moses could always be consulted to give them the truth.

The system was designed to ensure that there would be a transmission from parent to child and teacher to student. This guaranteed the Torah would remain a “living” Torah and not relegated to a library. Codifying the bare minimum in text form forced the Jewish people to rely on a system of relationships and living the life of Torah to remember all its laws. This is an integral part of the Oral Transmission that has stood the test of time, as we shall see.

This system remained in place throughout the 1st Temple. A central Torah authority was the final arbiter of disputes and there was no machlokes as to what Moses claimed God wanted the Jewish people to do in their service of God.

Many called this entire concept into question. Korach, Yeravam and others wished to undermine the Mosaic Torah authority. But it always existed.

During the Second Temple, due to oppression it was literally impossible to maintain a central Torah authority. Torah study was banned, Torah scholars were killed and Yeshivas were disbanded. Students began taking notes to ensure TSBP would be remembered.

In a revolutionary move, Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi collected many of these notebooks and canonized a version of TSBP notes called the Mishna. He too, followed the Mosaic formula of writing just the bare minimum necessary for a scholar to recreate the code from the Mishna. He wrote the Mishnayos in a format that would induce questions and those questions would in turn produce the TSBP tradition. He was successful to an extent. But due to the increased hostility and lack of central Torah authority disputes were common. R’ Yehuda HaNassi completely succeeded in the broader goal of maintaining the need for the parent to child, teacher to student relationship to transmit TSBP.

Mishnaic literature was discussed, argued and taught for a couple hundred years. Students continued taking notes and eventually these notes became the Talmud. Ravina and Rav Ashi collected these notes and recorded these conversations to canonize the understanding of the Mishna in order to recreate the entire code. Although to a lesser degree, they also made an effort to be concise and include only the discussion necessary for recreating the method of Jewish life briefly described in the Mishna that was based on the written notes of the Chumash that God gave to Moses. Their brevity, once again maintained the familiar generation to generation connection that TSBP demands.

Since the closing of the Talmud it has been discussed and argued vociferously. This is a good thing. It gives its scholars the chance they need to arrive at the truth. TSBP is not their discussions, it is what they are discussing. TSBP was given to the Jewish people at Sinai but in truth it exists all around us. It is the rules of nature and spirituality that govern our world. Distant cultures and tribes can come to similar conclusions as the Torah because they are examining the world that is the physical manifestation of that Torah. People who never heard of Torah can relate to many of its laws as they seem natural to them. In fact they are natural to the world.

In conclusion, when we say that Moses received Torah SheBaal Peh, what we mean is that Moses had all the information necessary to live and appreciate the Torah lifestyle. The Written Torah were the original notes to this information as time progresses, we now have Mishanic and Talmudic notes as well. Thus, our study of Talmud today continues the Oral Transmission of TSBP as we attempt to decode the original version of the Oral Law handed from God to Moses on Sinai. Today, our greatest resource to that end is the study of Talmud.