Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Judaism

New Koren English Talmud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: Koren

Dear Chaya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judaism of the Future

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

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

The answer to that question is undoubtedly, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But herein lies the problem, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the cure?

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

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

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

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

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

PDF version of this article: Judaism of the Future

Restoring Credibility to the Beis Din System

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

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

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

Here a few choice quotes:

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

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

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

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

From the introduction to the first edition:

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

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

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

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

Link: The Journal of the Beth Din of America

Turns Out Tapps is a Bunch of Bigots

rabbifink — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:38:26 +0000

Remember Tapps? Tapps is the governing body of Texas parochial schools including Beren Academy. A few weeks ago they became a household name after they refused to adjust their tournament schedule out of deference to Beren’s observance of Shabbos. Everyone from CNN, the NY Times, ESPN, and others reported the story and eventually Tapps acquiesced. Beren played Friday afternoon and won. They moved on to the championship on Saturday night and lost in the final game.

At the time, some people accused Tapps of anti-Semitism. I didn’t feel like it was anti-Semitism as much as it was myopia and insensitivity to others. (See: Beren Academy Forfeits Tournament Game Because of Shabbos and the World Reacts).

The NY Times decided to do a little digging and has made some interesting discoveries. While Tapps may not be anti-Semitic on its face, some new information forces us to reconsider.

It seems that not only did Tapps make life difficult for a Jewish school, Beren, but they have made it impossible, if not extremely degrading, for Muslim schools to join Tapps. While their decisions with regard to the Jewish school were ambiguous, their actions toward the Muslim schools can only be described as bigoted.

One school was given the opportunity to be considered for acceptance in Tapps and was asked to fill out a questionnaire. No non-Muslim schools were asked to fill out a questionnaire. The queries on the questionnaire were also quite offensive. Here are some of the nuggets discovered by NY Times:

Historically, there is nothing in the Koran that fully embraces Christianity or Judaism in the way a Christian and/or a Jew understands his religion. Why, then, are you interested in joining an association whose basic beliefs your religion condemns?”

It is our understanding that the Koran tells you not to mix with (and even eliminate) the infidels. Christians and Jews fall into that category. Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is in disagreement with your religious beliefs?

How does your school address certain Christian concepts? (i.e. celebrating Christmas)

When was the Bible allegedly polluted? Does the Koran actually state that the Bible is polluted?

What is your attitude about the spread of Islam in America? What are the goals of your school in this regard?

The school answered the questionnaire and was still not accepted into Tapps.

Tapps also sent a survey to the other schools asking questions like “would you leave the association if Muslim schools were included?”and “Is it in the best interest of Tapps to accept Islamic schools for membership?”. The results may be even more disturbing. 67% of respondents felt Muslim schools should not be allowed in Tapps.

There are multiple levels to this. First, Tapps is clearly not a friendly place for non-Christians. They are fervent in their beliefs and the beliefs of others not acceptable to them. They don’t play on their Sabbath, but refused to acknowledge the Jewish Sabbath. They believe that Muslims and Jews are doomed because they do not accept Jesus. (Generally, Christians really believe this, it says so in the Bible, just many Christians don’t act on these beliefs in the public sphere.) But they challenge those same beliefs in others. These beliefs are abhorrent and are not acceptable in 2012. One can, no, one must, be fervently religious without being hateful toward other religions.

I am sure there are some of you who think that the questions asked of Muslims are legitimate. I have a few things to say to you. First of all, this is sports league, not a religious debate league. It should not matter one bit what the beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are with regard to anything other than the scheduling and executing of the league schedule. The idea that the Muslim schools need to be “vetted” just so that they could play in the same league is extremely xenophobic.

Second, a questionnaire is not appropriate even if the league were a debate of religion league. They betray a deeply held prejudice against non-members of Christianity in general and an even deeper prejudice for Islam. These kids are living in Texas, not Saudi Arabia! Obviously their parents are more comfortable in a free country like America than they would be in a fascist country. Further, they are asking to play basketball, a Western game. They just want to be American kids. The questioning is inappropriate.

Third the particular questions are even more inappropriate. All religions condemn other religions. That’s a fact of religions. Move on. Accept it. The Christmas question is hilarious. Christians have asked me with incredulity “You don’t celebrate Christmas?!”. That’s right. Non-Christians don’t celebrate Christmas. Why is this an issue? The question that gives it all away is the last one. The “spread of Islam” is an irrational fear that has become a deeply rooted fundamental belief of non-Muslims. American Muslims who I know and talk to about these issues have no such agenda. Sure, there are insane fundamentalists who live in backwards, oppressed countries who want to convert the entire world to Islam. They have nothing to do with normal American Muslims. But thanks to the tireless efforts of heroes like Pam Geller, the average, bigoted, non-thinking, Christian American actually thinks that his religious beliefs are under siege from normal American Muslims. This is hate. Pure and simple.

Honestly, I don’t really blame Tapps. They are just buying what their heroes are selling. I blame those who are selling it. The best way that I know of eliminating hate is by getting to know one another. When people who are different on the outside get to know each other, preconceived notions are burst and understanding and appreciating can begin. The unfortunate result of Tapps’ bigotry is that it reinforces itself by discouraging their schools from increased interaction with the Muslim students. No interaction means no opportunities to unlearn their bigotry. But perhaps that is what Tapps wanted all along.

Although I was willing to overlook Tapps’ faux pas with regard to Beren as simple-mindedness, I am now changing my opinion and declaring them general bigots towards anyone not of the same religious beliefs as them. In 2012 this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for Christians in Texas and it is unacceptable for Jews and Muslims as well. We are all part of a global community now. Deal with each other in a civil way or go away.

Link: NY Times

What to Do About Abhorrent Beliefs in Religions?

rabbifink — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:11:59 +0000

Every religion has abhorrent beliefs. An abhorrent belief is a part of one’s religion that would offend an outsider. All religions have these beliefs. Whether they concern non-members of the religion, women, slavery, genocide or the afterlife, many religious beliefs are upsetting to members of other religions.

Historically, these beliefs were kept within the bounds of the religious group and no one was the wiser. By and large, people didn’t have access to religious texts and codes of other religions. There was little interaction between people of various religions. Abhorrent beliefs were safe.

But things have changed. The international community has become like a small village. We all know each other’s business. Television and the Internet have made us all virtual neighbors. Enemies used to be neighbors or neighboring territories. Now enemies can be anywhere in the world.

Last week, one abhorrent belief of Mormonism was exposed (again). I don’t mean to pick on Mormonism, we will get to Judaism soon. And while on the topic of Mormons, let’s not forget the comment made by a presidential candidate aide dismissing all Mormons as non-Christians. Anyway, the Church of Latter Day Saints has a practice of baptizing all sorts of people who are dead. They don’t deny it. In fact you can read several fascinating article on the LDS website about the practice. They base it on sources in the Old and New (sic) Testament and in their eyes it is a beautiful honor to the deceased. When it was discovered (again) that they were posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims, outrage ensued. Elie Wiesel and the Wiesenthal Center demanded that they stop and that they apologize. Somehow Mitt Romney was being asked to apologize as well.

I found myself conflicted. On one hand I have always had a distaste for baptism for the dead. It is the reason I won’t use a site like Ancestry.com which is owned by the Mormon Church and the data is mined for baptism purposes. I find the practice abhorrent. It really is a little twisted to think about baptizing people who were killed simply because they were Jews! On the other hand I also find it silly and meaningless. Why should it bother me if they say some magic words that in my opinion accomplish absolutely nothing? It’s a tough call. It’s certainly not as bad as Elie Wiesel thinks.

Either way, the issue is really what should the Mormon Church do about its abhorrent belief that they should baptize dead non-Mormons? They think they are doing a good and moral act. To outsiders it is offensive. What to do?

Closer to home, Judaism has its fair share of abhorrent beliefs. Most of them no longer apply. Most of them have either been reinterpreted or require circumstances that are not currently at play. Some people want to accelerate those circumstances and create the environment that would allow and require those abhorrent beliefs be put into practice.

Sometimes religious people have abhorrent beliefs or ideas that are not essential to their religion. They may think that these are religious rules, but they are not. These are social conventions that are more likely the result of years of persecution, insularity, and fear as opposed to drawn from religious texts. But the lines are rarely so clear. More recent texts are likely to mix the two and then provide sources for new abhorrent beliefs that are not intrinsic to the religion.

What does the orthodox Jew do about these beliefs?

There are two approaches that I know. The first is based on a famous thought experiment called the Euthyphro Dilemma. In short, the idea is that if God commands something it is intrinsically moral. Thus, the social conventions that may make a belief seem abhorrent are really false and true morality only exists in God’s commandments. This has appeal but it is a tough pill to swallow. Are we really comfortable with Divinely commanded genocide? I’d rather not have to make that choice. It also seems incongruous that God would create humans who would develop over time into beings whose sense of morality is at odds with God’s word.

The second approach is to interpret abhorrent beliefs in a way that makes them less abhorrent. This doesn’t always work, and could rankle the feathers of the more traditionalist among us, but when it works, it works well. For example, there is a commandment to hate (and kill) Amalek. This seems at odds with human perception of fairness and compassion. Over on Hirhurim, R’ Norman Lamm is quoted and I direct your attention there (Hirhurim) as his answer is not relevant to this discussion.

Which all leads to the most fascinating question of all: When these abhorrent beliefs are exposed or shared with outsiders and they make us look bad or old-fashioned, or immoral, or bigoted in the eyes of those outsiders is that a desecration of God’s Name?

Maimonides codifies several examples of kiddush and chillul Hashem in Chapter 5 of Yesodei HaTorah. None of them really concern the opinions of outsiders about our beliefs. They all concern how we act. There are times we must die for the sake of God’s commandments and there are other instances where our status as Jews or scholars requires us to act in a refined manner. Failure to do so is a chillul Hashem. The principle of chillul Hashem as it relates to how others think of our beliefs does not enter the conversation.

I think we can safely say that exposing what the Torah says cannot be considered a chillul Hashem.

However, this does not account for social conventions, prejudices, and anti-social ideas that emanate from insularity or superstition that are confused with religious fervor or beliefs. I think it is fair to say that exposing a non-essential abhorrent belief might be a chillul Hashem. That is unfortunately the inevitable result of the new global community. So what is the appropriate response when these secrets are revealed (as they were in Unorthodox)?

The solution is not to cry chillul Hashem and force the issue back into the dark hole from where it came. The solution is to eradicate non-essential abhorrent beliefs. There is little we can do about our essential beliefs that don’t jive with modern sensibilities. We have to hope that others recognize that every religion and even many non-religions have abhorrent beliefs and so long as they don’t cause any harm, they can be ignored. Much in the same way as I can ignore baptism of the dead. But if there are non-essential abhorrent beliefs in our community that can be changed or removed, I think it is wise and prudent to do all that we can to eliminate these items from our community.

Unorthodox | Book Review (and analysis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended for adults only.

Click here to purchase from Amazon: Unorthodox

Book Review | Must a Jew Believe Anything?

rabbifink — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:21:20 +0000

Menachem Kellner is a scholar par excellence. I enjoy his books, and other writings very much. One book that I particularly enjoyed was the provocatively titled: Must a Jew Believe Anything?

The book is not really about what the title implies. Instead, the book is an analysis of required beliefs in Judaism. It is an excellent book and a joy to read. I heartily recommend the book to anyone interested in the evolution of fundamental beliefs in Judaism.

One important issue that is thoroughly discussed is the importance the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud placed on actions while placing less importance on faith or beliefs. This is true. But the significance of this fact is debatable. That is because faith or belief in a deity was a basic assumption of life in the era in which the Sages lived. One had to be insane to be an atheist 2000 years ago. How would one even begin to explain the world in which they lived. However, today one can certainly be sane and deny the existence of God. In fact, some might argue that the tables have turned and belief in God is the less sane position. After all, there is no scientific proof of an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. So, while I enjoyed the discussion in the book about actions having more meaning than beliefs in the eyes of the Sages, how well that transfers to modern times is another discussion entirely.

Another core point of the book is that in adopted the 13 Fundamental Beliefs of Maimonides there is an odd irony. On the one hand, Maimonides the Rationalist lost. By this I mean that Judaism today is mostly not the Judaism of Maimonides. Today’s Judaism is dominated by metaphysics, mysticism, and Zohar-centric Kabbalah. The Judaism of Maimonides functioned without these elements. (For a thorough analysis and discussion of this point see Kellner’s book: Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism.) So Maimonides lost. He tried to establish a Judaism free from these non-essential elements but he failed. The public rejected his approach.

On the other hand, the public embraced the revolutionary suggestion of Maimonides that there are 13 fundamental beliefs and what those beliefs actually entail. There were other fundamental belief systems proposed by others and Judaism may have got along just fine without a formal expression of fundamental beliefs.

Yet, here we are today. The public has rejected rationalism and embraced fundamental beliefs. Isn’t it ironic?

The final part of Must a Jew Believe Anything? is a polemic. Kellner argues that it should be okay to relegate the 13 Fundamental Beliefs for the sake of Jewish Unity. His proposal is based on the assumption that Orthodox Jewish rabbis and non-rabbis avoid working with non-orthodox rabbis and non-rabbis. There is no conversation or joint agenda in which orthodox and non-orthodox Jews participate. Further, Kellner assumes that this plain fact is because of the halachic prohibition that proscribes a believer from engaging with a heretic. The logic follows that since by the lights of the 13 Fundamental Principles there is a presumption that non-orthodox Jews are technically heretics. Hence, it is forbidden to engage them. This, according to Kellner is the reason there is no communication between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews. Kellner then argues that for the sake of unity, continuity, and peace we should discard with a highly literal usage of Maimonides fundamental beliefs and open the lines of communication with non-orthodox Jews.

One might suspect that I would agree with Kellner on this matter. In principle I do. I wrote about it here: There is No Tent. I think we should increase communication and interaction with all Jews. But I don’t agree with Kellner’s logic here. Not at all.

The reason there is little interaction between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews has very little to do with halacha. It has a lot to do with social concerns. The orthodox establishment is more concerned with their children and keeping their children orthodox than the nitty-gritty of whether or not it is permissible to engage with the non-orthodox. In other words, the real reason there is little interaction between the groups is because the orthodox are concerned about the influence that non-orthodox will have over their children or even themselves. It is a matter of insulation and isolation, not a matter of halacha.

And so, it makes little difference to the orthodox Jew that fundamentals of faith are a novel introduction by Maimonides or that there are other codes of faith that could be acceptable. What does matter is that access to a world of Judaism that does not follow the chain of halacha that is followed by orthodox Jews could “corrupt” orthodox Jews and they may jump ship. It is merely circling the wagons. It is not a halachic decision.

Therefore, Kellner’s ambitious and admirable suggestion is a non-starter. Unless the orthodox Jewish community can foster a confidence in its principles and ideals to the point that interaction is not considered a spiritual danger, I don’t foresee a change in approach. As a pure academic exercise, the recommendation of Must a Jew Believe Anything? is bold and exciting to me. But in a practical sense, it is lacking.

The only way intra-Jewish relations will change significantly is if our leadership suggests that it has value and that value trumps overzealous concerns over assimilation. I hope it does change.

I strongly suggest reading Must a Jew Believe Anything? and thinking about its many fascinating points for discussion. If you have read it let me know what you think in the comments.

Buy the book on Amazon: Must a Jew Believe Anything?

Rabbi Yair Hoffman Responds to Yossi Sarid, Unconvincingly

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

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

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

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

I decided to analyze the debate systematically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: VIN

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

Yossi Sarid Shows Us the Ugly Side of Secular Extremism

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

I have a confession to make.

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

So I gave up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: Haaretz

Book Review | Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism

rabbifink — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:48:50 +0000

I don’t remember where or how I came across this book, but when I saw Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism referenced somewhere, I knew I had to snatch it up. I saw it just after I wrote about the modern day exorcist here: Demons, Dybbuks, Devils and Exorcism. Buying this book was a smart decision. I read the book a little while back and neglected to do a review but I’ve wanted to tell you all about this book since I read it.

The author, J.H Chajes, is a professor at University of Haifa. He is a distant relative of the great Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes. Between Worlds is very scholarly and well researched. Yet, it reads like a novel, well almost like a novel, and it kept me engrossed in its content from start to finish.

Between Worlds chronicles the rise of recorded incidents of dybbuks and exorcism in the era of mystical writings of the Arizal’s students. Most of the book takes place in the 16th and 17th centuries. The book traces the relationship between Christian, Muslim and Jewish exorcism legends and practice as well. An appendix has full accounts of exorcisms found in rabbinic literature from that era.

As a skeptic, I found the restraint of Chajes astounding. It is almost as if he is winking the entire time that he is writing about demonic / disembodied soul possession. You just know that he can’t believe what he is writing as fact is even possible. But he writes as an objective 3rd party about rabbis and others performing exorcisms with a straight face.

There are a few points that I took away from the book that are worth sharing. First of all, the book mentions some disputes between rabbis. They were vicious disagreements. Accusations of philandering, abject immorality and horrible insults are hurled the way of one particular rabbi. I can only imagine what our rabbinic disputes will look like to historians some time in the future. Fascinating to read and fascinating to think about.

Second, the book supports the theory that “the more knowledge becomes accessible, the more some religious leaders will try to ‘esotericize’ their religion to maintain a level of separation between the masses and the public”. I know, that theory is a mouthful. With regard to exorcism it works as follows. The masses were becoming more literate throughout the world. Exorcism was an art reserved for spiritual leaders and scholars. It was not available to the masses no matter how learned they became. Thus, the existence of demons and dybbuks reinforced the need for leadership. It is similar to today’s maximalist position of Daas Torah. In a time that more orthodox Jews can study the sources and responsa on a given subject, the religious leaders have reserved a segment of inaccessible knowledge under the maximalist position of Daas Torah. I’m not saying this is wrong or intentional, rather it is a pattern and it happens.

My third point for this review is the nature of the relationship between Jewish scholars and their Christian and Muslim counterparts. It seems that there was much interaction between them and they worked together, at least for the sake of exorcism. It was nice to see cooperation instead of the stereotypical debates and polemics against one another. If they could do, so could we.

If you have ANY interest in dybbuks or demons or exorcism or 16th century mysticism, buy Between Worlds.

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

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

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

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

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

There are three very big problems with these segregated buses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Future of Women in Orthodox Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: Cross-Currents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links: American Thinker, Twitter

There is No Tent

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

Originally Posted on YUBeacon.com: There is No Tent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Orthodox Mormons

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

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

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

I have a “thing” with Mormons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: NY Times

Book Review | Strictly Kosher Reading

rabbifink — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:55:46 +0000

Over Yom Tov I read some great books and articles. I hope to share some of them with you over the next couple of weeks.

Perhaps the most compelling book I read was hot off the presses: Strictly Kosher Reading by Yoel Finkelman. Briefly, the purpose of the book is to present an academic study of the fiction and non-fiction reading that is published within the charedi community. Analyzing books for children, adults, women, religions and secular audiences gives the scholar access to the framework of charedi Judaism.

The book posits that charedi Judaism is a conscious effort to recreate a Utopian version of Eastern European orthodox Judaism. The book disputes that this society ever truly existed in the way it is imagined and recreated today and calls this version of history unhistorical and a myth. But the point of the book is not to prove or disprove whether or not this is a myth or fact. Rather, the book tries to prove that there a Herculean effort to establish that myth/fact as the reality in 21st century America.

The book only analyzes the charedi community and uses a specific (and very accurate) definition of the charedi community. It is a non-chasidic, “yeshivish” community that does not completely shun the outside world. Charedi communities are not absolutely insular. They teach secular subjects, many obtain secular jobs, English is the primary language, yet there is a conscious effort to reject much of secular culture. Whether it is culture, science, diversity or other contemporary values in secular society, these are all rejected.

This creates a very interesting phenomena. The charedi community is situated inside the secular, “outside” world but ultimately rejects much of it. This balance is what creates much of the tension in the book and in the charedi world. Ideas are only acceptable if they are found in Torah, secular recreation is frowned upon, yet, and this is the key, ideas not found in Torah have crept into charedi Judaism, secular recreation (fiction books, sports, movies etc) have found their way into the charedi community.

Strictly Kosher Reading analyzes this phenomena and does so excellently.

I read a lot as a teenager and read a lot of the books that Finkelman uses in his analysis. At times, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his findings. Particularly with regard to books that claim to teach the “Torah approach to X (parenting, depression, divorce, whatever)” but really are just regurgitated ideas from popular science, psychology, pop-parenting, etc.) that are repackaged with Torah lingo and jargon is this most egregious. Further, trying to codify any specific parenting, family, psychology advice as Torah advice is at best disingenuous because of the myriad sources that disagree, contradict or talk above one another. Also, it is clear that many of these sources are products of their times and the vicissitudes of the environments in which they were written.

I recommend Strictly Kosher Reading for any curious reader.

I do have two criticisms of the book. One in style and one is substance.

The style critique is that the book seems to jump around a lot. There are times where I was reading and wondering how what I was reading was related to the paragraph I had just completed. Things seem disjointed at times and there is no clear order to the book. Also, similarly, the author is constantly telling the reader “what he is going to do” and when he is going to do it. It was a bit distracting. I do not revoke my recommendation based on this I just wish it were easier to read.

The substance critique is a bit more serious.

Throughout the book various rabbis, gedolim and Roshei Yeshiva are mentioned. Mostly because there are books written about them and they provide more data to support the book’s arguments. Three specific gedolim are mentioned and I feel strongly that mentioning them in the context of this book is disingenuous.

The three are: R’ Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, R’ Shimon Schwab and R’ Yaakov Weinberg. I admit, I have a bias towards these three great men. They are three of my personal heroes.

Finkelman tries to prove that the American yeshiva is a facsimile of an Eastern European yeshiva that never really existed. One of his “proofs” is a famous idea from R’ Shraga Feivel who is credited with inventing the modern day charedi yeshiva / day school. In his view, R’ Shraga Feivel was saying that the goal of the American yeshiva is to follow the model of the Eastern European yeshiva. The thing is that R’ Shraga Feivel’s model was specifically a drastic departure from the prior Eastern European model. The same quote Finkelman uses to prove his point is actually a disproof! R’ Shraga Feivel’s theory of education is quoted as follows:

“Reb Shraga Feivel sel-consciously set out to create a new type of bochur in the melting pot of America, one who would… draw from all that was best of the many strands of European Jewish life. America… would produce a new Jew combining within himself the best elements of Europe: the Lithuanian intellectual acuity, the bren (warmth) of Chasidus, the organizational abilities of German Jewry, and the appreciation of hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the mitzvah) of the Hungarians. Above all, the American Jew would be characterized by his temimus (sincerity), a trait that was much more a part of American culture than of Europe.”

My grandfather was a talmid muvhak of R’ Shraga Feivel and is mentioned several times in the book. He is also credited with facilitating the book’s publication in the acknowledgments. I probably heard this idea from my grandfather several dozen times. This was R’ Shraga Feivel. It was his essence and the essence of the yeshiva system he envisioned for America.

The entire point R’ Shraga Feivel was making was that America is different and requires a more well rounded yeshiva student. He is quoted in the same Artscroll book as saying that yeshivas in America needed to produce “soldiers” and not “generals”. This in itself was a huge modification to the yeshiva system as it was in Eastern Europe where the goal was to produce Torah giants and not be as concerned with the general public.

Therefore, I find it disingenuous to use R’ Shraga Feivel’s words to make the point that American yeshivos recreated the Eastern European version when he was in fact saying and doing the very opposite.

The book uses a famous quote from R’ Shimon Schwab to support the idea that charedi Judaism specifically creates a sanitized version of history that supports the charedi view of history. His words:

What ethical purpose is served by preserving a realistic historic picture? Nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity. We should tell ourselves and our children the good memories of the good people, their unshakable faith, their staunch defense of tradition, their life of truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless charity and their great reverence for Torah and Torah sages. What is gained by pointing out their inadequacies and their contradictions? We want to be inspired by their example and learn from their experience…

On the surface this quote plays right into Finkelman’s thesis. I believe that R’ Schwab meant something slightly different. He meant that the focus of studying history for frum Jews is not for historical accuracy. It is for inspiration. It is not a science. It is literature. Meanwhile he clearly acknowledges that the charedi view of the past is skewed. But he says that’s okay as long as one realizes the difference between inspirational myth and history. I don’t believe R’ Schwab meant that we should purposefully ignore or rewrite history. Rather that if the goal is to inspire (and usually it is in charedi schools) then it should not be taught as history or claim accuracy, rather it is inspiration.

R’ Yaakov Weinberg is quoted in the book as well. The context is not important at all. What is important is that if anyone with gadol credentials would agree with Yoel Finkelman it would be R’ Yaakov Weinberg. His learning was classically rationalist in many respects, his yeshiva approved of college and secular education and his students are more acculturated than the students of almost any other yeshiva to the right of Yeshiva University. He was maligned for his “left wing” views and fought for moderation in the charedi community. It seems silly to toss R’ Weinberg’s name into a conversation about charedi censorship and rewriting of history and casting him as part of the process. He certainly did more to slow that process down than any other ostensibly charedi gadol.

My father is a talmid muvhak of R’ Weinberg. I met R’ Weinberg several times myself. I grew up hearing his insights and opinions on a daily basis. That he could be lumped in with the most narrow version of charedi Judaism is absurd by all accounts.

Similarly, I think R’ Shraga Feivel and R’ Schwab would more likely be allies of Yoel Finkelman on many matters in this book. If he felt it was necessary to include them in his study and place them on the side of the fence that is criticized in Strictly Kosher Reading I wish there would have at least a footnote at the mention of the names of these three gedolim indicating their general stance as being more sympathetic to the author’s than the current charedi establishment.

There is much more wonderful, insightful, fascinating and constructive material in the book. I strongly recommend it for anyone who wants an academic lens into charedi culture. Whether you know nothing about the charedi community, are in the charedi world now, were in the charedi world at one time, or plan on being in the charedi world sometime in the future, Strictly Kosher Reading is a great read.

Click any of the links in the post to purchase from Amazon: Strictly Kosher Reading. (Softcover version here: Strictly Kosher Reading)

In Defense of Yom Tov Sheni (The second day of Yom Tov outside the Land of Israel)

rabbifink — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:29:21 +0000

Tablet Magazine tells us that there is a new crisis in the orthodox Jewish community. Keeping two days of yom tov outside the Land of Israel is under attack.

The Torah commands the Jewish people to celebrate certain holidays with restrictions on creative activity akin to Shabbos. There are 6 days like this in the Torah. Rosh Hashanah (1), Sukkos (2), Shmini Atzeres (3), Pesach (4,5) and Shavuos (6). In the Diaspora these days are celebrated for two days of restrictions on creative activity akin to Shabbos. When these days fall out on Thursday and Friday it creates the proverbial 3 day yom tov. For 3 straight days, one is bound by those restrictions and it can make even the most fervently religious and observant person uncomfortable.

It seems that the discomfort is becoming so great that liberties are being taken with the “2nd day”.

An article in Tablet describes one orthodox family that allows their family to use “electronic entertainment” on the 2nd day. They have basically abandoned the 2nd day but supposedly keep everything else. Over time they have found more families that observe similarly and they feel less guilty. In fact the mother was quoted as saying “Mostly, I feel like I know a fabulous secret that no one else knows.”

The article assumes that the backlash and difficulty in keeping the 2nd day comes from a lack of understanding or appreciation for why we keep the 2nd day. I tend to agree.

As a rabbi in a very diverse community I have been asked this very question in many way, shapes, forms and formats. Perhaps my understanding of the issue will help illuminate some of the people who are on the fence or even if they are not on the fence, curious, as they should be about the observance of 2 days in modern times.

First, a bit of background and history.

The first commandment given to the Jewish people as a nation was the requirement that they follow the lunar calendar and establish the new months via witnesses who testify that the new month had begun. When 2 witnesses would see the new moon they would come to the court and testify as what they saw. If their testimony was accepted, the new month would begin immediately.

Sometime during the Second Temple a comprehensive lunar calendar became available. But the Biblical requirement to establish the new month via witnesses remained. Further, there was a bit of ambiguity that remained in the calendar. The previous month could be 29 or 30 days. This would be determined by the witnesses. If the moon was seen the eve of the 30th day it would become the 1st of the next month and the previous month would have had 29 days. If it was seen the eve of the 31st day the previous month will have had 30 days and the next day would the 1st.

The news of the new month was sent across the Land of Israel and the territories with Jewish inhabitants. News of the new month would hit almost immediately in Israel. But the outlying territories would not hear about the precise date of the new month for up to 2 weeks.

So in Israel it was simple to establish the start of the holidays that begin on the 15th of the month (Sukkos and Pesach) and on the 15th the holiday began, they celebrated one day as the Torah commands. But in the outlying territories, news of the which kind of month, the 29 day month or the 30 day month, was not heard before the holiday was scheduled to commence.

So let’s assume the 29th was Sunday. If the 30th day was really the 1st day of the new month, the 15th would be Monday. If the first day of the new month was the day after the 30th, the new month would begin on Tuesday and the 15th would be Tuesday as well.

In the outlying areas they would celebrate Monday AND Tuesday as the holiday just to be certain that it was being celebrated at the right time. This became the established law during the time of the Talmud.

Today, we have a set calendar and there is no court to establish the new month via witnesses. There is no doubt as to which day is yom tov. So why do we celebrate the 2nd day in 2011?

Tablet correctly notes that since it was established in the Talmud as law we are bound to it. What they do not explain is why the Talmudic scholars may have done so.

There is significance to the fact that the very first mitzvah given to the Jewish people as a nation is the commandment to establish the new month. Many reasons and explanations are given. One of the more poignant proposals is that of R’ Hirsch.

R’ Hirsch compares the Jewish people to the moon. Just as the moon waxes and wanes, so too the Jewish people rise and fall. Sometimes we are up. sometimes we are down. Just as the moon reflects light from the sun, so too the Jewish people reflect the light of God and the Torah.

This comparison reminds us that we are constantly forming and reforming ourselves. The story is never over. Our choices can change who we are at any time. We are anything but complete.

Further, the power of the people to proclaim the new month, the requirement that the new month be established by the people serves as a constant reminder that we have so much power as human beings. We can control time and we must harness it to work for us.

This is an integral lesson for the Jewish people and the entire world. The Torah clearly wants us to master this life lesson as indicated by the very prominent place the Torah gives this commandment. It is the first commandment given to the Jewish people as a nation.

But how are we to integrate this lesson into our lives with action if the commandment to establish the new month with witnesses has become obsolete? If our calendar is set, we miss out on learning this valuable lesson.

It is for this reason, the rabbis established that we celebrate 2 days in the diaspora even when we no longer rely on witnesses to begin the new month. By keeping the 2nd day we remind ourselves of the important lessons of the moon and the important lessons of human beings establishing the new month. If we always kept one day, we would lose that opportunity. Forever. That would be tragic.

To make sure that this lesson remained part of the Jewish experience the rabbis of the Talmud mandated that we keep the 2nd day in the Diaspora. Even today.

I think that if we view the 2nd day as an opportunity for making these lessons real, we have a better chance of withstanding the temptation to dismiss the 2nd day. However if we view it as a quirk of history, a mistake as it were, then it is far too easy to do away with the 2nd day.

It is my hope that we can inspire each other to commit to the 2nd day with as much fervor, excitement and passion as the 1st day and use it is a springboard for greater personal growth through the years.

Link: Tablet

REPOST: The Mechanics of Teshuva

rabbifink — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:55:28 +0000

REPOST: I wrote this last year. I think it is worth reposting for this year’s “10 Days of Repentance”.

As we approach the Jewish New Year there is an effort to at least attempt to enter Rosh Hashanah clean from sin. Unfortunately, we have made bad choices, we have done wrong in our lives. How are we to start a fresh year with joy and confidence if we are carrying all the baggage of mistakes we have made. It can be depressing thinking about bad choices we have made. They all have consequences and we may regret what we have done. But regret does not fix the harms we have caused. Regret can have a debilitating effect if it holds us back from achieving our goals as we wallow in self pity.

Fortunately, there is a concept of Teshuva, repentance, in Judaism. The word repentance generally refers to a person to has decided to commit their life to God (see Wikipedia on repentance). But what of someone who already has committed their life to God and is trying to do their best to make the best moral choices in their life but has made mistakes? Is there a mechanism for that person to somehow come back to God? Aren’t they already committed to God? What more can they do?

In Judaism there is such a mechanism. That is what we call Teshuva. Anyone can do teshuva and everyone should be doing teshuva all the time. Any time we make the wrong choice we have created separation between ourselves and God who is Perfection. Our lack of perfection stands in the way of being with God and Perfection. The further we are from perfection, the further we are from God. Teshuva gets us closer to perfection.

But how? Once we have acted and done wrong the deed is done. Can teshuva make it disappear? Is it magic?

Compounding the problem is the idea that God is the Ultimate Judge. That means that if an act is “bad” it deserves immediate consequences. There is no judge, no jury, no lawyers, no plea bargain deals, Ultimate Judgment means that every act has an exact and precise Divine Reaction. That is how the physical world works as well. If ones steals something, the item is stolen immediately. There is no grace period or gray area. If one kills someone, the person is dead. If one cheats on their wife, they have cheated. In the physical world, our actions have immediate, real reactions. That is what is meant by “judgment” (poor translation of the hebrew word din). There is an immediate reaction to our actions from God as well. The distance created by our lack of perfection is instantaneous. How do we repent from acts that are done? If someone is dead because of our action, no amount of sorrow or regret will bring the person back. Same with infidelity. How can teshuva fix the immediate reactions of our actions?

This leaves us with an additional question: While it is true that God acts with judgment, God also acts with mercy (rachamim) how does mercy reconcile with judgment if judgment means that every action has an immediate physical and spiritual reaction?

The Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim provides a wonderful explanation. First, he explains that the mercy of God is that while every action does have an immediate spiritual consequence, that consequence can be suspended for a period of time giving the person time to repent.

But what of the repentance? How does that work? He says that every action really has two parts. The first part is the formation of intent. The idea and the desire to act are the first part of every action. Then we act; that is the second part. The action causes the immediate result. Physical and spiritual. Each action is “owned” by its actor. So when one makes a wrong choice the act is connected to them. The action is the end of a chain that hooks up to the actor. The hook on the end of the chain that is connected to the actor is the desire for the result. So a flow chart would look like this:

Actor—->Desire—->Action—->Result.

The result is only connected to the actor through the desire. Teshuva is the process of “undoing” the desire for the action and its result. True repentance occurs when the actor wishes with all their heart that they had never acted the way they did. When the person truly regrets their choice the desire part of the action can be unhooked from the actor! If there is no hook connectig the action to the actor (the desire) then the actor and the action are no longer associated with one another. That is teshuva. Repentance is disassociating the action from the actor by removing the desire to act. Of course, in order for the desire to be disassociated from the actor the actor must everything in their power to fix the horrible results of their action. But once that is done, repentance can be achieved and the action can be clipped away from the actor.

Certainly, the deed is done. What’s done is done. We cannot change the past. But we can change our association with the past.

This kind of repentance leaves no room for baggage and guilt. It is a clean break from the past and allows us to move forward to a future of better choices.

It is the perfect way to begin a new year.

(To hear some of these concepts in an audio class click here: Mesillas Yesharim 03/15/09)

Making The Post Yom Kippur Meal Meaningful

rabbifink — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:01:13 +0000

Although many Jews celebrate Pesach and Chanukah, anecdotally, I think the most universal Jewish tradition is Yom Kippur.

Back when I was a campus rabbi at USC, even the most unaffiliated students would fast. One year, many of my students attended the USC Trojans football game in Palo Alto against Stanford on Yom Kippur. Almost all of them fasted.

At the Shul on the Beach, we are bursting at the seams on Yom Kippur. At least 20 minutes before Kol Nidre every seat is full. As the shofar blasts signaling the end of the holiest day of the year, there is standing room only. Every square inch of the shul is occupied by our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Indeed, Yom Kippur brings all Jews together. I think it brings us together even more than Chanukah and Pesach because there is only one way to do Yom Kippur, at least externally. We all fast and we all come to shul. The sense of unity and camaraderie is inspiring. On other holidays, the traditions have become more fractured and diverse. Different communities, religious denominations and families celebrate so differently.

On Yom Kippur the observances are much more uniform. I believe Yom Kippur is the most universal Jewish tradition.

Where traditions veer off onto their own is the post fast meal.

For some, the solemnity of the day carries over into the post fast meal. For others, the sheer physical toll makes the meal less of a meal and more of a struggle to restore some of their sapped energy. For others, it becomes a bit of a party and celebration; a time to socialize and connect on a personal level. My family’s tradition is to break the fast with a festive meal that is almost like a Yom Tov meal.

The NY Times chronicles some of these traditions in a recent article. One tradition that is gaining traction is non-orthodox circles is a post fast community or group meal.

I think it is important to realize that the post fast meal has great potential for growth and accomplishment as we begin anew post our Yom Kippur penance. Wasting the opportunity seems like a shame.

It seems that it is easy to dismiss the post Yom Kippur meal as a newfangled (read: negative) experience. A social gathering has potential for undesirable levity and frivolity. This would be disappointing after an inspiring day of spirituality. But if done the right way, I think there is merit to post fast meal.

Upon the completion of a powerful group experience of fasting and praying together, we can tap into the energy of those moments and use them to our advantage as relationship building experiences. I know that whenever I been part of a shared experience that has impacted the group, we connect and share a common bond that carries tremendous weight. Using the post fast moments to unite and connect with one another could be a very meaningful experience.

I can’t think of many better ways to spend the nirvana-like moments after Yom Kippur.

Link: NY Times

My Opinion on Kaparos With a Chicken (Don’t Do It)

rabbifink — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:55:28 +0000

This post originally appeared on DovBear last High Holiday Season: Why I Won’t Be Waving a Chicken Over My Head This Week

For hundreds of years, rabbis have been trying to ban kaparos. The Rashba, the Ramban, the Bais Yosef and more recently, the Aruch Hashulchan all wanted to ban kaparos. Some did, and no one listened, others did not because they knew no one would listen.

Classically, the primary halachic objections to kaparos are the issue of “darkei Emori” (pagan ritual) and the likelihood of flawed shechita due to the high volume of chickens being shechted in a short amount of time.

Kaparos lives on. In fact kaparos with chickens has only increased in popularity in my lifetime.

I think it is time to end the kaparos with chickens custom. Here is why:

Many smart rabbis have tried to ban the practice already. (see above for the two primary reasons – pagan / bad shechita)
When the great rabbis of yore try to ban a practice and the PEOPLE are persistent… I am suspicious.
The “reasons” given to justify kaparos are purely kabbalistic and have no other source in nigleh.
It appears like magic.
Saying the formula of “zeh tmurasi” while holding an animal is an activity that is dangerously close to acting as if the chicken is a korban. That is assur.
Money is just as “effective”.
The treatment of the animals before, after and during is often tzaar baalei chaim. Chickens were found wandering the streets of Brooklyn one year after a rain forced the organizers indoors and the chickens were neglected. The unlucky chickens drowned in their cages.
The HUGE chillul Hashem that has occurred in many locations over the last few years. Chickens dying from dehydration, feces and feathers on the street for days after Yom Kippur and other health violations as well.
It looks pagan. Thus it makes Orthodox Judaism look pagan in the eyes of others. This might also qualify as a chillul Hashem.
A diyuk in the Aruch Hashulchan (605:4).

Why do we need a diyuk? Because some people don’t use common sense (1-8) unless there is a “source” in a relied upon halachic decisor. So for them…

Here is the diyuk:

“(Use the chicken that you use for kaparos for your erev Yom Kippur meal or to provide a meal for a poor person.) One is not permitted to search for a WHITE chicken to use for kaparos. This is avoda zara. Whatever one has on hand is what they should use for kaparos.”

I think it is fair to say that the Aruch Hashulchan is saying that people were shechting a chicken for the seudah anyway (the same way they would if they would shecht a chicken for any festive meal), they were using a chicken from the backyard. Everyone had chickens that they would use for eggs and eventually for meat, if they wanted to use one of those chickens for kaparos it was okay. However, it was not permissible to seek out a specific chicken (like a white chicken). One was only supposed to use what was on hand.

I think it is likely that the Aruch Hashulchan would prohibit using ANY chickens today when we are ALL seeking a specific chicken as none of us have chickens on hand. The idea was that if you were already shechting a chicken you could add some extra meaning to the procedure by contemplating the irony of the situation. As you were heading to judgment, you were killing a chicken. But for us, who never touch chickens (unless we are shlugging kaparos) are in effect doing just what the Aruch Hashulchan prohibits – seeking after a chicken for kaparos.

Happy 160th Birthday to the New York Times

rabbifink — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:01:18 +0000

The First Issue

160 years ago a fledgling newspaper printed its first issue. On September 18, 1861 the New York [Daily] Times began its journey from the new kid in town to the old gray lady. It cost one penny.

I really like the NY Times and I am thankful it exists. I know, there are many of you who are positive that the NY Times is anti-Semitic or at least anti-Israel. It is hard for me to see it but even if I did it would not take away from the pleasure I have in reading their articles on every other topic imaginable. I would not boycott reading a newspaper if I sensed a bias in their writing.

I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times almost every day. Generally, I prefer the Times.

I went into the NYT Archives and found an article from their first edition. Copyright laws prevent me from posting the entire article, but I will quote a few lines that I found to be profound and an idea that I try to incorporate into my life and writing on a daily basis.

Apparently, in the days before the Times ran its first presses, there was wide speculation as to the nature of the paper. It was praised and denounced in advance of it first issue. The Times described itself thusly:

Upon all topics, – Political, Social, Moral and Religious, – we intend that the paper speak for itself; – and we only ask that it may be judged accordingly. We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good; – and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right or exactly wrong; – what is good we desire to preserve and improve; – what is evil to exterminate or reform.

I think this is the precise balance that must prevail in Judaism as well. Sometimes being a Traditionalist or Fundamentalist is necessary and good. Sometimes being a Liberal or Progressive is best. It depends on the situation. It depends on all the relevant facts and factors. Going to either side to the extreme, whether blindly or willfully is not the golden mean that Maimonides speaks of and we all strive toward.

Judaism itself believes that there is nothing intrinsically good and nothing intrinsically evil. Everything depends on the context. Everything depends on how it is used.

Heed these words. Critically analyze everything and don’t allow yourself to become a slave to only one way of thinking.

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

rabbifink — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:07:38 +0000

The orthodox Jewish world is in tumult over the recent essays published by a local Los Angeles rabbi. Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky wrote a series of blog posts in varying tones explaining why he is unwilling to say the blessing where men thank God for not making them women. The exact text of the blessing reads: Blessed are You, Lord our G-d, Master of the world, who did not create me a Woman.

This blessing comes from the Talmud quoting the Tosefta. It has been part of Jewish liturgy for nearly 2000 years. Any tradition, be it religious or not, that has that kind of cachet cannot be discarded willy nilly.

Indeed, Rabbi Kanefsky justified his position by articulating something that many have felt when reciting or hearing this blessing: by its plain meaning, and by the simple smell test, it has the effect today of justifying our lack of progress, and of affirming for us that women do not possess the spiritual dignity than men do.

There has been a very strong response from more traditionalist orthodox rabbis.

One blog has dedicated no less than four of its 28 blog posts in August to distancing itself from Rabbi Kanefsky and either by association, implication or explicitly tossed Rabbi Kanefsky out of orthodox Judaism.

There is much to say on this topic and much has already been said. My purpose in this blog post will be to deal with two separate issues. They could just as easily have their own independent blog posts. But I prefer one landing place for both of these issues.

The first issue relates to the actual blessing in question.

The second issue relates to the response from the traditionalists.

The Blessing

It was 11 years ago that Senator Joe Lieberman famously said on Imus in the Morning that he does not say this blessing. My less than 20 year old brain was met with the tension between tradition and modernity. I decided then that it was necessary to understand the blessing and what it meant.

There are several apologist explanations for the blessing. They all basically say something along the lines of women are really on a higher level than men, they don’t need to do as many commandments, they can if they want, but they don’t have to, men need the commandments to lift men out of the abyss, the blessing recognizes that men are appreciative for having those commandment to elevate them and thanks God for that opportunity. It is not insulting to women because it is not about who is better, it is about appreciating having more commandments.

While this is somewhat enticing, it falls short. The next logical step is that if the commandments are not indicative of higher status rather lower status, why are we blessing God for that? Could it be that it is something like tziduk ha’din – thanking God for the bad as we do after a death? Unlikely. The other morning blessings do not follow this form.

Further, there are several medieval sources that actually say that the blessing is to thank God for for not making man a woman because women are not as special as men. It is certainly a viable explanation for the blessing. As I have written previously, I don’t blame the rabbis of the Talmud for thinking that way – if they did. They were subject to the social values of their era.

Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks offers this explanation:

“…they are acknowledgments of the special responsibilities of Jewish life. Heathens, slaves and women are exempt from certain commandments that apply to Jewish men. In these blessings, we express our faith that the commandments are not a burden but a cherished vocation”

In other words, the blessing is an affirmation that extra commandments are a privilege. Well, why doesn’t everyone have this privilege?

It is easy to see why the blessing is an affront to many women. It implies inferiority at worst or less opportunity at best. It could be argued that just because Judaism has some specific roles for men and women does not mean it deserves a blessing to that effect. I completely understand why some find it offensive.

Rabbi Kanefsky’s feelings about the blessing are justified. His actions are what are subject to scrutiny. His feelings are not.

The Response

Rabbi Shafran takes a strong stance against Rabbi Kanefsky. Rabbi Shafran’s approach to orthodox Judaism is that things are not supposed to change. Commitment to orthodox Judaism and its mesorah mean accepting the status quo and not changing anything. In his mind, not saying the blessing is a change and simply because Rabbi Kanefsky is “big enough” to impose a change in orthodox Jewish liturgy, he can’t. Not only that, but making such a change is enough to push Rabbi Kanefsky out of orthodox Judaism.

The punchline:

But when a contemporary rabbi, particularly one who has not yet garnered the wisdom that comes with many years of living and learning, proposes to reject an element—any element—of the Jewish mandate, there can be no question about his having relinquished the right to call himself Orthodox.

Speaking of change, a friend of mine put Rabbi Shafran’s opinion in perspective. The biggest innovation in the history of orthodox Judaism is that there is no innovation in orthodox Judaism.

This is especially true with regard to liturgy.

In orthodox Judaism there are three primary nuschaos (prayer styles). They all follow a basic formula but transferring from one to the next is a difficult proposition. There are enough words, sentences and paragraphs that would make it uncomfortable for one who prays using nusach A to lead the services for a nusach B congregation.

How did this happen?

Simple. Different communities felt different prayers were important enough to incorporate into their services. Some did. Some didn’t. Over hundreds of years some prayers were added, others were deleted.

In the Aleinu prayer a line was taken out because it was offensive to the non-Jewish community. Some have said it should be put back. Others leave it out. No harm; no foul.

My great-great-grandfather, Reb Elya Lopian, a Torah giant with impeccable credentials (the Brisker Rav said of him: He is what R’ Yisrael Salanter had in mind when he created the Mussar movement) adjusted his personal prayers several ways. In the introduction to his classic work, Lev Eliyahu, we are told that Reb Elya did not say “ki shem Hashem ekra…” before his Mincha amida, When Reb Elya would lead the services on the High Holidays he would omit the line “hineni he’ani mi’maas nir’as v’nifhad…” because he felt it was not honest. He felt he wasn’t really afraid so he just skipped it. Reb Elya also changed the words of “Elokai nitzor l’shoni” into “Elokeinu nitzor l’shonenu” because he felt that the author of the prayer was honestly trying his hardest to avoid the things mentioned in the prayer, but we don’t necessarily try our hardest so how could we ask God to do it for us? Instead Reb Elya switched the words to be general prayer on behalf of everyone.

I have been told, although I can’t find it in the book, that on Tisha B’Av Reb Elya even omitted the references to Jerusalem being desolate and destroyed. His reasoning was how could he say those words when they were no longer true?

In short, prayer for Reb Elya was an exercise in truth and honesty. The rigidity of the words in his prayer book were not impenetrable barriers to be accepted without careful consideration.

There is precedent for changing prayers and adjusting the liturgy based on many factors.

Of course Rabbi Shafran knows this. His problem with Rabbi Kanefsky is two-fold. One, he is not “choshuv” enough to make changes. Two, Rabbi Shafran makes that disingenuous claim that orthodox Judaism does not change.

As to the first claim: This is a classic ad hominem attack. If the change is valid, the source of the change is irrelevant. Very weak argument by Rabbi Shafran.

As the second claim: The entire concept is a lie. Things do change, especially in the liturgy.

Rabbi Shafran, and anyone else for that matter, would be taken much more seriously if he would make an actual argument against the change other than “we don’t change”. Does he have such an argument? I don’t know.

What does Rabbi Shafran really mean to say?

I think he means to say that changes that were made in the past were either needed, necessary or important enough to make. This change is not. In his opinion, the sensitivities of women who find this blessing offensive are not sufficient to warrant a change to the liturgy.

This is fair position. He can say it is not important enough and others can disagree. But by drawing the lines as he did, there is no room for discussion. One side is presenting halachic analysis and reasoning. The other is just closing its ears and saying “I can’t hear you”.

I think the way forward is to have a genuine discussion about the liturgy. Tossing your opponent out of orthodoxy doesn’t make the issue disappear nor does it win any argument.

As always, debate and discourse will provide the best way to analyze the issue and give orthodox Jews the tools they need to make the most appropriate informed decision for themselves.

Links: Morethodoxy, Cross-Currents

Where Did Religion Come From?

rabbifink — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:52:33 +0000

The Atlantic has an interview with noted sociologist and author Robert Bellah about his new book called Religion in Human Evolution.

I have NOT read the book. I have read the interview.

The book is a study of how and why religions became part of the human experience from the perspective of social evolution. The premise is that humans need religion and this spawned religion.

Obviously, this is not a perspective that most religious people are going to be comfortable sharing. For religious people, religion came directly from God. Not because of a human need to create religion.

Although, reading the interview made me think about how religions view other contemporary religions to their own and religions that preceded their own. For example, what does Judaism / Christianity / Islam / Buddhism / Hinduism / Native American religions etc. say about how the “others” practice. If each religion claims it was revealed by God then what are all those other people doing? Did God give them other instructions? Or did they invent their religions while yours is correct? Where did those religions come from if God only revealed your religion?

Very interesting questions.

As for Judaism, Maimonides has a comprehensive approach to explain the existence of religions prior to Abraham and how one served God before the revelation of the Torah.

Briefly, God revealed to Adam some basic commandments but of primary importance was to recognize the existence of a Singular, All Powerful Creator. A few individuals were able to maintain this level of observance. But most people corrupted it and began to focus their attention to things that they viewed as “powers” such as the sun, moon, wind etc. Instead of worshipping the Creator they worshipped these “powers”. Eventually this gave way to full blown pagan religions.

The only monotheistic religion was the small group of people who followed Adam’s teachings. Abraham was chosen as the man from whom would grow a people who would teach this system. Eventually this became the Jewish people who got a much more complete set of instructions at Sinai.

Christianity and Islam are clear and direct branches off the Judaism tree.

We are forced to say that other religions either evolved from the original pagans who did not accept the monotheism of Adam / Abraham or that they borrowed ideas from existing Adam / Abraham monotheism. As for their claims that God revealed their religion to them through a prophet and the instructions differ from ours, there are two points. First, there is certainly room for prophecy among non-Jews but it is unlikely that a pagan would be a prophet considering the qualifications. Further, if the prophet contradicted the Torah or the Abrahamic version of monotheism we would be forced to say the prophet is a fraud.

Being part of a global community of religions sometimes means that we need to admit that our traditions are mutually exclusive. I think it is important and worthwhile to analyze how we deal with questions about how other religions were formed. Each religion believes it is the right one. But they cannot ignore the fact that others exist.

Most importantly, the presence of such questions and analyzing their answers does not prove or disprove the validity of religion in general or a specific religion in question.

Link: The Atlantic

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

Half Shabbos, Half Truths, Half Solutions

rabbifink — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:05:59 +0000

Just because everyone else is talking about it, doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t…

The Jewish Week became relevant for a few minutes this week with a scintillating indictment of modern orthodox Judaism. It seems the Jewish Week just found out that lots of orthodox teens struggle with Shabbos and many of them are texting on Shabbos.

The phenomena has a name. It’s called keeping “Half Shabbos”. Which is just like the question of whether someone is “shomer negiah” in that it seeks to validate a halachically impossible choice. There is no such thing as a “Half Shabbos in halacha”, nor is there a non-shomer negiah option in halacha. But teens are teens and they need labels and molds by which to sort confusing or difficult things and themes. So teens invent ideas like “Half Shabbos” and shomer negiah to give context to their struggles.

My thoughts on the article?

1) Apply grains of salt liberally. The Jewish Week cites some anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal journalism is not strong journalism. To be fair, I have also written articles based on anecdotes and made broad sweeping generalizations based on those anecdotes. However, I am an “insider” or at least “insider adjacent” to orthodox Judaism whether it be modern orthodoxy or chasidus. I have friends, neighbors, relatives who are part of or have left those groups. I do have some context. ~~The Jewish Week lacks that context and thus their “outsider” perspective~~ (update / correction:) [Although the author of the article and editor of the Jewish Week are orthodox, the tone, tenor and agenda of the Jewish Week are decidedly not and therefore anecdotes in their publication] should to be taken with grains of salt. Further, they couch the phenomena as a “new norm”. Methinks that is a bit of a stretch.

2) The phenomena exists. I don’t think the fact that it exists signals a failure of any stream of orthodoxy, specific schools or schools of thought. This is simply because each stream, school, school of thought has its own sets of challenges. This one, by the way, seems to be prevalent throughout all of them. I worked extensively with at-risk teens from ’99-’02, yeshiva kids smoking pot (on Shabbos), watching movies (on Shabbos) and they had challenges. They rationalized too. But eventually they got a crossroads and either bought in or bought out. Point being, this sort of challenge is not unique to one group. So failure? No. Issue? Yes.

3) Issues needs to be addressed. I believe that parents need to take a proactive role in the lives of their teens. Parents (otherwise known as tuition payers) and certain “experts” (who are paid by parents angry at their schools) love to blame schools for their children’s problems. I don’t believe in placing blame. I do believe in assigning real goals and objectives to address issues. Parents need to be able to limit their teen’s use of cell phones. It can be done with a carrier side block, it can be a condition of cell phone ownership that kids must deposit their cell phones into a Shabbos box before Shabbos, it can be anything the parents and teen agree (or are forced to agree upon). But if a teen has access to their phone of Shabbos, the parent is placing a huge challenge before their teen. It can be avoided.

That being said, if Shabbos is difficult for teens, and it is, there needs to be a way to help them enjoy the experience more. I don’t claim to know or understand the needs of teens and how Shabbos can be tailored to meet their needs. But I am certain that for many teens the Shabbos table discussions of adults are irrelevant, boring and quire frankly can be a turn off. Peopl kvetch and moan about Jewish issues at their Shabbos tables. This is good conversation and important to discuss. But for a teen to hear negative, negative, negative, blah, blah, blah, every single week, it can have a terrible effect. So, I propose more relevant Shabbos discussions for teens.

I also propose advancing humanist or even secular motives for refraining from texting for 25 hours a week. Non-religious people all over the world are able to find meaning and benefits from “turning off”. As much as I dislike trying to attribute a modern benefit to an ancient law, if it can resonate with teens and motivate them to “buy in” it is worth the effort.

4) Then there is the broad picture. I don’t believe this is a new issue. I don’t believe it is a different issue per se than watching TV on Shabbos (I had modern orthodox friends who would sneak some TV watching on Shabbos) or smoking on Shabbos, or eating on Yom Kippur, or skipping tefillin for a few days, (all of which I saw with my own eyes or heard first hand from friends and acquaintances) or any other teen rebellion that is considered completely normal. The biggest factor in determining whether the teen returns to “Full Shabbos” observance (or at least trying) will be the reaction of the public.

If we treat them with respect, compassion, understanding and tolerance there is a chance they will grow out of their teen spirit. If they are shunned, outcast, name called and tossed out of the religion, even if it just their perception and not reality, we will almost undoubtedly have lost them. Let us not forget the lessons of Ari Goldman in Book Review | The Search for God at Harvard that even a small feeling of exclusion can hurt for a lifetime. Let us remember that even if we disapprove of their choices, our teens remain OUR teens. Their issues and problems and OUR issues and problems. So long as we can toe the difficult line of being inclusive and tolerant of their indiscretions with the hope of change and clear message that we do not approve of their choices, their is no reason for me to believe that this new version of an old problem will not see the same satisfying result.

Link: Jewish Week

Where Half Shabbos hit the blogs first: Kavanah

Book Review | The Search for God at Harvard

rabbifink — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:00:28 +0000

Normal book reviews review books that have been recently published. This is not a normal book review. It is really a more of a reflection upon reading a wonderful book.

A friend suggested I read The Search for God at Harvard and gave me a copy of the book a little while ago. I finally got around to reading The Search for God at Harvard and really enjoyed it. There are some very important thing that I learned from the book and I recommend reading it if you have not yet read it yourself.

The Search for God at Harvard is supposed to be the story of New York Times journalist, Ari Goldman’s year at Harvard Divinity School. While much of the book focuses on his year there, the book is really about some of Goldman’s issues with religion, issues with his parents and his rise in through the ranks at the NY Times. In other words, the backdrop for the book is Goldman’s year at the Div School, but the bulk of the storytelling in the book has nothing to do with what he learned there. I would have liked more.

But that is my only criticism of the book; wanting more can hardly be a criticism.

Ari Goldman was raised as an orthodox Jew in the 60′s. As Goldman notices, much has changed in the orthodox Jewish community in the last 50 years. Goldman remains committed to orthodox Judaism, but like everyone, is not perfect. He takes some liberties with his observance. This is an attitude that has mostly been purged from orthodox Judaism. Many people think this is a good thing. I do not. Goldman’s story is a prime illustration why.

I cried two times while reading The Search for God at Harvard.

You can’t help but notice that Goldman feels cheated by his parents who divorced when he was 5 years old. He makes it clear that he still feels the pain of that 5 year old who lost his beloved friday night Shabbos dinners with his parents. So when he has a moment where he connects with his son and realizes how lucky he is to be a father it seems to give him a bit solace. You can feel him healing. The writing is that good and the point is so poignant that I could not help but to tear up. But this was a sidebar to the book. I think the second time I cried shows how the social changes in orthodox Judaism over the last 50 years may not be for the best.

The biggest tear-jerker for me was at the end of the book. Goldman struggles to remain observant throughout the book. He struggles as single male in the big city. He struggles as a journalist who may need to work on Shabbos. He even feels Divine Intervention when his first real journalism gig at the NY Times does not require he work on Shabbos. He feels connected to orthodox Judaism. It is his Judaism.

After the year at the Div School, Goldman and his wife and son move to Westchester County. They join a modern orthodox synagogue. The rabbi hears that Goldman has quite a talent as a cantor and asks him if he would lead one of the services on the high holidays. At first Goldman is honored but he declines. Eventually he acquiesces to pressure to take the job. He feels validation that he has been able to navigate the difficulties of balancing modernity with an ancient tradition. But some members of the shul are not happy. They find some of his activities are not in consonance with Jewish law. They said he worked on Shabbos, he ate (kosher food) in non-Kosher restaurants, he read the New Testament, his son was named for a non-Jew etc. In Goldman’s mind, these were struggles. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost. In Goldman’s eyes these were battles. To his coreligionists they were seen as compromises. And they threatened the sheltered world of orthodox Judaism. That year, Goldman did not lead the services. In fact he did not even go to the synagogue because he was so hurt.

That was when I cried.

The postscript to the high holidays story was that the other synagogue members eventually apologized. They told Goldman that they too participate in many of this “objectionable” activities. But they keep them quiet. They don’t discuss them. If had kept his mouth shut he would have been just fine.

Goldman concludes his book with what I feel to be the most significant point in The Search for God at Harvard. After the ethnic pride movements of the 70′s, religions began to shift to more fundamentalist views in the 80′s. This continued through the 90′s and brings us to where we are today. Intolerance for co-coreligionists and “other-religionists” became more pronounced in the 80′s than it was prior to the 80′s. President Reagan brought religion to fore of policy and discourse in America.

In orthodox Judaism a similar phenomena happened as well. Orthodox Judaism became more narrow. Many activities, positions, policies, beliefs, modes of dress, aspirations among other things that were previously accepted in the broad spectrum of orthodox Judaism were expunged. People and communities were told to move to the right, or move on. It has not let up since. In matters of theology, practice, social and religious, the orthodox Judaism of my grandparents is long gone.

Am I crazy for trying to bring it back? Maybe. But that won’t stop me from trying.

Pick up your own copy of The Search for God at Harvard by clicking on any of the links in the post. It is a great read.

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.

Attempted Murder in New Square: An Analysis

rabbifink — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:52:24 +0000

For some background, see yesterday’s post: Thoughts on Kiryas Joel: The Poorest City in America

The chasidic town of New Square (an enclave that is very similar to KJ) has found itself in the news for all the wrong reasons. Last week an 18 year old goon attempted to burn down a man’s home along with the people inside the home. The target had been a victim of intimidation and vandalism on previous occasions so he had recently installed a surveillance system of cameras around his home. It was on these cameras that the victim first saw the goon. He went outside and confronted the goon.

A short brawl ensued and the goon lit his Molotov cocktail and fled. Both men caught on fire but the house was spared. The victim suffered severe burns all over his body and has already undergone skin grafts.

The arson and attempted murder were escalations of previous action against the victim. Prior to this incident he had been subject to protests in front of his home, broken windows in his car and his home.

What crime did the victim commit that sparked vandalism and violence?

He prayed at an old age home nearby instead of praying in the community synagogue. The grand rabbi of New Square requires that all residents of New Square attend the same prayer service on Friday nights. The victim did not attend. The goons were enforcing the rabbi’s rule.

No one excuses the behavior of the goon. Social pressure is one thing, by violence is inexcusable. It would be unfair for me or anyone to place specific blame on anyone other than the goon who committed this act. There is no hard evidence that he was instructed to do what he did. There is some circumstantial evidence but for purposes of this article, it will be conceded that this person acted alone.

One response that I have seen on blogs, Twitter posts and Facebook comments is that the victim “had it coming”. (See: Avi Shafran on New Square) The village has a rule. He chose to live there and should expect that he will suffer some indignity for his failure to live by the standard of the village. Further, if he doesn’t like the rules, he should have left the village instead of staying AND breaking the rules.

In my opinion, this completely misses the point.

There was another scandal this week. The Head Football Coach at Ohio State University resigned amid a whirlwind of allegations that he assisted and enabled players to break the rules of NCAA. The players are being disciplined and their Head Coach, Jim Tressel has resigned and is being crucified in the media.

Jason Whitlock wrote a really great column about the scandal (Tressel Product of Flawed System). Whitlock contends, and I agree with him, that while Tressel is culpable for his sins, he is really just the product of a system built on lies. The primary lie being that student athletes are amateur. Whitlock has been saying forever, and I have been agreeing just as long, that the NCAA is the biggest fraud in America. They make billions of dollars off of these athletes but the athletes see none of that money. To maintain amateur status they must adhere to thousands of rules that basically prohibit them from taking any gifts or benefits from anybody.

Tressel was just part of the system. He didn’t create the problem. He didn’t make the problem worse. He was just a cog in a mighty machine. Indeed, he broke the rules. However the system is deeply flawed and everyone is breaking the rules that the real criminal here is not Tressel. It is the NCAA. [The same should be said for USC, Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo and Pete Carrol.]

What happened in New Square is the result of a flawed system.

Any system that demands absolute fealty in every respect of one’s life, stripping one of independence and the opportunity to think and choose is a bad system. Any system that demonizes someone for asserting one smidgen of original thought is a bad system.

The perpetrators of violence and social terrorism are cogs in the machine. The machine is the problem. It isn’t the cogs.

To complete the analogy, the arsonist was a football player, the leadership is Jim Tressel and they are all part of a system like the NCAA.

The system needs to be fixed. The cogs are all responsible for their actions but the most frustrating thing is that their actions are justifiable in the system. That is why the system needs to be scrapped. It permits behavior like this to occur. This incident is only one example of a rotten system. There are more.

Maintaining control over people is not easy. But with per se poverty and social terror it becomes easier to enforce. That is part of the reason why the Kiryas Joel situation is so problematic. (See: Thoughts on Kiryas Joel: The Poorest City in America). It creates a breeding ground for anti-social behavior.

According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch the Torah is designed to create a positive social environment for growth and spiritual development. It can’t be that poverty, oppression, terror and anti-social behavior are the darchei noam, pleasant ways of the Torah. It just can’t.

Book Review | Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza

rabbifink — Tue, 17 May 2011 17:20:46 +0000

As I mentioned previously (see: When Did the Western Wall Become a Place of Prayer?) I found an interest in the Cairo Geniza. I went on Amazon and looked for the best looking book I could find on the Cairo Geniza and I bought Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza. It was amazing.

First, some background. As we recently studied in the Rambam Class, there is a prohibition against the detsruction of God’s printed name. So what do you do when the names are printed in books or on papers if they are no longer able to be used? Geniza. They are buried and given the same respect given to humans after humans die.

Generally, a geniza will be buried and the paper will decompose and be lost forever. The Cairo Geniza is a collection of items that fell into disuse. But the Cairo Geniza has two incredible anomolies that make it so special. First of all, the residents of Cairo and the contributors to this geniza buried all items with hebrew letters. They buried contracts and poems as well as prayers and biblical texts. This makes the content of the geniza much broader. More importantly, because of the climate and the fact that the geniza was in a closet sized room and not buried underground, many of the items placed in the geniza remained intact.

The Cairo Geniza was a repository of nearly 300,000 Jewish documents and holy texts spanning 1000 years. The earliest documents were from the 9th century and the latest documents were from the 19th century. That is a mind-blowing discovery. Further, as opposed to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the people of Cairo were not a minor sect. They practiced rabbinic Judaism similar to orthodox Judaism of today. The traditions and teachings of orthodox Judaism that are practiced and taught today can be traced through the Geniza and were practiced and taught in a way that is familiar to orthodox Jews today.

Sacred Trash is best known for its wonderful way of weaving together the men and women who discovered the geniza, their motivations and personalities with their discoveries. It reads more like a novel than a book of Academia and I am sure that history buffs and budding scholars will find the book a bit watered down. No matter. It was perfect for me.

Reading Sacred Trash I learned a lot about Solomon Schechter. Today, his name is associated with Conservative Judaism. But when he was chasing the Cairo Geniza, he sounded very different from what I expected. His writings and his passions for strict observance of Judaism is more familiar in Orthodox Judaism than Conservative Judaism today. It seemed to me from the excerpts in the book that were taken from his writings that he would be more comfortable in a Yeshiva today than at the JTS. It could be the book has mislead me, but that is what I gleaned from the book about Solomon Schechter.

I also learned that rough drafts of the Mishnah Torah were found in the geniza. Oh how I would love to see those…

My main interest in the book was to get a sense of daily religious life for observant Jews 1000 years ago. It wasn’t easy to pull these details out of Sacred Trash as that was not its purpose. But the few things that I learned in this regard were very profound and have affected or affirmed the way I see Judaism.

In the earliest recorded days of the Jewish community in Cairo, there were three synagogues. One was for Jews who followed the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud. That would be most similar to today’s orthodox Jews. The second was for those followed the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). The third was for Karaites. They did not follow the Talmud at all. Although their disagreements on theology were intense. There is evidence that they married out of their respective sects and “intermarried”. They made stipulations about observance in the marriage contracts resolving to place their affection for one another above disagreements on observance. They disagreed on theology but all realized that they were striving for the same truth. This created an environment of inclusion rather than exclusion.

To me, this is an important lesson. I am not certain if the lesson is applicable today or not. But I am sure that I wish it was. Healthy competition among Jewish sects is a good thing. But hatred, negative propaganda and absolute dismissal of entire swaths of Judaism cannot be the ideal. But more importantly, it wasn’t always this way. It doesn’t always have to be this way either.

The other thing that caught my eye in Sacred Trash was the focus on liturgy and in particular piyitum of the Jews in the early years of the Cairo Geniza. Piyutim (liturgical poems) were the focus of Jewish life in those days. People who could not read hebrew or pray came to the synagogue to hear the newest piyutim. Each week a new piyut was written in masterful style and substance. It is something that is lost upon us moderns but to them it was the ultimate expression of devotion and connection to God. It’s interesting for a number of reasons. The first thing I thought about was the comparison to the secular world. Entertainment in those days were ballads. People paid money to hear a good ballad. Jews came to the synagogue to hear beautiful ballads about God, the Jews and Torah.

In my view, this illustrates the amorphous nature of social Jewish observance. During the era of the Temple, the focus of Jewish social observance was the holy Temple service. Following the destruction of the Temple the focus became redacting, editing and perfecting Jewish texts like the Torah and the Talmud. It seems that in the 9th through 12th centuries piyutim were the focus. During medieval times, the focus for many was simply survival for others it was the three methods of commentary on the Talmud, pirush, psak and pircha. After the Renaissance the focus shifted to scholarly Talmudic discourses called pilpul. Some felt this was too intellectual and robbed many of a connection with God and Chassidus was born. In the last century, the focus has shifted to a life of kollel, where men study Torah full time after marriage and are supported by their communities (or wives). Also we have seen the rise of the Daf Yomi (daily study of one folio of Talmud) and perhaps most of all we have seen the proliferation of chumros (stringencies) and segulos (charms). I wonder, how will we be defined in a few hundred years?

Of course, these are generalizations. And also, we are presuming adherence to mitzvos and participation in the synagogue as a given throughout these eras of observant Jews. But the point remains. The focus of social Jewish observance changes, has changed many times and continues to change. It is important for our generation to know that we are unique, things are different today than they have ever been and the social acceptability of kollel life is not a given. Many would say, perhaps it should be reexamined.

Sacred Trash taught me a lot. I am sure it will speak to you in other ways as well and it will be a great addition to your bookshelf.

Pick it up from Amazon.com by clicking any of the links like this one: Sacred Trash

Glenn Beck, Radicalized Islam and Reform Rabbis

rabbifink — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:05:16 +0000

I know that Glenn Beck is primarily an entertainer. I don’t think most people take him to be a scholar or expert on most important matters. He is a radio personality. He has a nice voice, a good shtick and a loyal following. Sure, I found his Nazi references ironic (see: Glenn Beck and PETA in Lockstep (Goose Step?) on International Holocaust Remembrance Day). But overall, I don’t care all that much what he has to say. In much the same way that I don’t care what more liberal entertainers have to say. It’s just entertainment.

But yesterday, Beck made another inane comment that made me realize something.

First, the context:

Beck is talking about the 400 rabbis who took out an ad to protest his Nazi references. His point has been that these rabbis are not really religious rabbis, they are social action rabbis who don’t care about religion. Instead they “worship” liberalism. So there is no reason to take them seriously.

Now here is the comment:

“When you talk about rabbis, understand that most — most people who are not Jewish don’t understand that there are the Orthodox rabbis, and then there are the reformed rabbis. Reformed rabbis are generally political in nature. It’s almost like Islam, radicalized Islam in a way, to where it is just — radicalized Islam is less about religion than it is about politics. When you look at the reform Judaism, it is more about politics.”

My only real commentary on this is that the when you make an analogy you can be as broad or as narrow as you want. You could analogize the Religious Right in the GOP to radicalized Islam too. Watch this: the Religious Right in the GOP is just like radical Islam, they want to enforce a religious law on all people. See what I did there? Anyway, the test of an analogy is to see if it makes sense in any other contexts. So, do radicalized Islam and the GOP share anything else? Not really. So it’s a dumb analogy.

Reform Rabbis and radicalized Islam share even less.

Oh and FYI, Orthodox Rabbis are also plenty about politics.

But here is what this whole thing got me thinking: Almost a couple hundred years ago, Reform Judaism was in its infancy and was gaining traction among the young Orthodox Jews in Germany. People were jumping off the orthodox bandwagon by the dozen. It presented a real problem for the future of Orthodox Judaism. In response, two general approaches were developed. The Chasam Sofer and Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch the leaders of each. They each tried as best they could to stem the tide of those abandoning Orthodox Judaism.

No matter their tactics, it turns out that today Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism have very little to do with each other. Further, the bandwagons have very few people jumping back and forth between them. For almost all Jews today, there is no conscious choice between Reform and Orthodox. Most stay where they are or leave organized religion entirely.

My point is that practically speaking, there is no longer a battle between Reform and Orthodox Judaism.

Yet, the rhetoric from both sides still sounds like it is 1860. Most Orthodox Jewish rabbis would probably agree with Beck that Reform Rabbis are not “real” rabbis. Orthodox Rabbis frequently confuse the word “Jew” with “orthodox” and basically call anyone not orthodox, not Jewish. I doubt we will see too many Orthodox Rabbis “defend the honor” of their reform counterparts.

(Similarly, I cannot recall hearing an Orthodox Rabbi being praised by a Reform Rabbi. It just doesn’t happen.)

I hereby offer my puny voice. I disagree with Beck. I think Reform Rabbis are learned, spiritual leaders and teachers who are important for the future of Judaism.

Really, even the most cynical of Orthodox Rabbis should agree with this. Why? Because if not for Reform Judaism, almost all secular Jews would completely lose their connection to Judaism. Isn’t it better, even from an orthodox perspective that Jews retain a Jewish identity? Marry other Jews? Contribute to the social welfare of the world? Come to shul on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur? How about every Shabbos? Advocate for Israel? Isn’t Judaism as a whole stronger if there is a reform movement?

I think the answer is yes.

I will even take it a step further. Reform Judaism challenged Rav Hirsch and the Chasam Sofer to sharpen their hashkafos and approach to Judaism. Today Reform Judaism challenges us to fine tune our observance as well (within the construct of halacha of course). Without mentioning specifics, I think it is worth noting that Orthodox Judaism is being challenged by Reform Judaism in a good way. It’s a mild form of kinas sofrim (competition among scholars). That is also a good thing.

So in summary, I think Glenn Beck’s obtuse criticism of “Reformed Rabbis” is misguided. He probably thinks that all reform Jews are evil and not “really Jews” just like many Orthodox Jews. (Where would he get this from? Let’s just say there are some Orthodox Jews in his ear…) But I disagree. I salute Reform Judaism and its Rabbis. Although we may disagree about theology, we all desire for Judaism to remain strong and vibrant. Like many presumed enemies, we have much more in common than we may think and if the rhetoric is toned down, we may actually be able to work side by side (even if not hand in hand) towards our common goals.

Link: Media Matters

UPDATE: Beck apologized. Kind of.

Mona Eltahaway: An Important Voice of Progressive and Passionate Religion

rabbifink — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:55:43 +0000

(More discussion on DovBear: here)

In case you didn’t know, I have another mini-blog on Tumblr. It’s called efink’s tumblrings and you can see it here: efink’s tumblrings. On Tumblr you can follow other Tumblrs. One of the Tumblrers that I follow linked an excellent article by a Muslim Feminist named Mona Eltahawy, called Let Me, a Muslim Feminist, Confuse You.

It’s excellent because it is passionate, interesting, well written and important.

I found it very interesting how some of the struggles she encounters and experiences as a progressive Muslim woman reflect similar encounters and experiences within the orthodox Jewish community.

She takes a little shot at ultra-Orthodox Jews in this line:

I moved to Israel, where I was the first Egyptian to live and work there for a western news agency. I became a liberal Muslim because my ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighbours reminded me of ultra-orthodox Muslim Saudis. Orthodoxy serves men much more than it does women.

Ouch.

But, it’s hard to argue with her perceptions. Although I will say that the predominant levels of oppression that exist within the ultra-Orthodox community are nowhere near the levels of oppression found in hardline, fundamentalist Islamic community.

And as an orthodox Jew it’s very easy to relate to her struggle. It is worth noting that passionate religious beliefs can be hard to maintain in a modern world. In this respect, Ms. Eltahawy and I are in very similar situations. I am sure there is much that I could learn from her.

Perhaps most importantly, for my orthodox Jewish friends who do not acknowledge the movement within Islam that is progressive and modern this article is exhibit A. Its author is not alone and its author represents the kind of Islam that all Americans should support.

HT: Huma Rashid

If You Criticize Israel You’re Not a Jew?

rabbifink — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:59:34 +0000

Roger Cohen has an Op-Ed in the New York Times that addresses an important issue. The issue is Jewish criticism of Israel. But the sub-issue is when Jews call others “not real Jews”. Of course knee jerk reactionaries will say the NY Times is Anti-Semitic and Cohen has no credibility etc. In my opinion. that just proves his point.

This “you’re not a Jew” calling happens all the time. In Judaism there are so many passionate causes and ideals that sometimes those who believe in some of those causes and ideals feel like they have a license to determine one’s Jewishness or lack thereof by their commitment of lack thereof of that cause or ideal. (See this post for more: Our Penchant For Defining Ourselves By Excluding Others)

The subject of the article is a liberal American Jew who was in Israel for a year. There were several incidents that were disturbing but the worst incident was on his way back from a rally carrying a sign that said “Zionists are not settlers”.

A group of religious Jews wearing yarmulkes approached, spat on them and started punching.

“About 20 people saw the whole thing and just watched. They were screaming, ‘You are not real Jews.’ Most of them were American. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my life — you can disagree as much as you want with a banner but to allow violence and not react is outrageous. For me it was a turning point. Nobody previously had said I was not a real Jew.”

Obviously, this is horrible and I am ashamed. Jews should not be beating up other Jews for expressing an opinion. The aggressors clearly believe that the protestor is not “Jewy enough” to warrant their concern. It’s fine to beat him up because he is not “one of us”. It’s disappointing to see and it really calls into question the legitimacy of their position.

Cohen then goes on to argue (by implication) that all liberal Jews (and non-Jews) must disagree with Zionism and settlements. Further, Cohen says that really the president wants to exercise more pressure on Israel to change their policies toward the Palestinians. He uses the word “occupation” a few times as well.

It’s fine for Cohen to express his opinions. That doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he is guilty of a similar flaw he exposes in Zionists. Cohen is basically saying that you are not a good American Jew if you don’t criticize Israel. That is just as egregious as the Zionist calling the more liberal Jew “not a Jew”.

And what of this claim? If it was an anecdote in an Op-Ed I would try to tell Cohen to be less reactionary and chalk it up to a few morons. But unfortunately this is not the case. I have seen what Cohen describes with my own eyes.

Well meaning Jews will tell anyone who criticizes Israel as a traitor or less of a Jew. It happens. I have seen it.

If we cannot be critical of ourselves then of whom can we be critical.

If the reaction to anyone that disagrees is that “you are not one of us” that doesn’t speak well for the confidence in that position. If there is no conversation, no discussion, just “not a Jew” knee jerk responses nothing will change.

The situation is incredibly complex. Israel was granted to the Jews by the U.N. but there were non-Jews living there. That must have hurt. A lot. Many of their supporters refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country. That hurts too. For years, Israelis lived in fear of terror attacks. More recently, the terror attacks have been quelled. Palestinians have been told by their leadership that they are refugees, they have not lived the full lives that they deserve. The local Palestinian governments are linked to terrorists and corruption is rampant. Yet, they are human beings who are living marginlized lives a few short miles away from a thriving First World country. See, it’s complicated.

And in the end Israel is an important place. It is the most democratic state in the Middle East. But sometimes it can be hard to tell. It can still do better.

Link: NY Times

Whose Fault is a Dropped Game-Wininng Touchdown?

rabbifink — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:52:27 +0000

According to Steve Johnson, wide receiver for the Buffalo Bills, it seems that it is God’s fault.

The Bills played the Steelers very tough on Sunday. The Steelers have much more talent, a much better record and by all accounts should easily have handed the Bills their 9th loss (out of 11 games). But somehow, the Bills put together a rally and found themselves in a tie game at the end of regulation forcing overtime. In the NFL overtime is sudden death (during the regular season) which means that the first team to score, wins the game.

It was all tied up about four minutes into overtime when this happened…

The Steelers found a way to win the game in overtime and the Bills stumbled to 2-9.

After the game, Steve Johnson, the wide receiver who dropped the ball in the endzone, took out his frustrations on his Twitter account.

I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO...

November 28, 2010 3:12 pm via Twitter for iPad ReplyRetweetFavorite

@StevieJohnson13

Stevie Johnson

I think, that translates into something like this:

Dear God,

I am your loyal servant. I pray to you. I praise you. I believe that everything I have is from you. So why did You cause me to drop that pass? Why did you let me down when I needed you most.

Love,

Steve

Almost immediately, the tweet ignited a firestorm. I’m not sure who was more incensed, the religious people or the not religious folks. Frankly, I can’t understand why anyone would be offended by an obviously dejected football player’s religious rant.

Yet, people were offended. People were uncomfortable hearing that God was responsible for the dropped pass and the lost game.

What is interesting to me is the implications of Johnson’s tweet. Most people don’t think twice when an athlete, or anyone else for that matter, thanks God when they accomplish something remarkable. Politicians winning elections, athletes winning games, business people making the big deal, chefs cooking the perfect dish or any of the millions of minute instances in our daily lives that religious people thank God for whatever they are feeling or experiencing. Ask an Orthodox Jew how they are doing and 99% of the time the answer will be something like Baruch Hashem, Blessed is God.

And it seems that we have no problem with this. But isn’t the implication of “everything good comes from God” that “everything bad comes from God as well”?

It is. It’s no different at all. If one attributes everything good to God, then one is forced to attribute everything bad to God as well. The Talmud says that the same one should make a blessing when something good happens, one should make a blessing when something bad happens.

And this is where Johnson veered off course. Johnson assumed that God would only do good for him. Johnson assumed that his prayers and his praise guaranteed his success. Of course, this is not the case. Subscribing everything to God requires one to accept that God has a Plan and one is subject to that plan regardless of whether one is satisfied with the outcome or not.

Truthfully, this conversation is probably moot. Judaism subscribes to a theory of Divine Involvement. There are various opinions as to how much Involvement there actually is in our lives. According to most, it is a lofty level indeed to merit the kind of Involvement that every moment of one’s life is directed by God.

For most of us, God remains hidden. We carry on our lives with the assumption that we do the best we can in the face of the myriad of options that present themselves to us on a daily basis. We say “Thank God” when good things happen, not to say that God is the only Party directly responsible for our good fortune, rather to include God in our success so that we do not forget that our existence is thanks to God.

One more thing. Even according to those who attribute Divine Involvement to more people, the Inolvement does not exonerate one for their actions. Involvement can move “pieces”, create scenarios, but our choices and our actions are still our choices and our actions. It is impossible to blame God for our misdeed. We make the choices. We perform the action.

In the end, Johnson clarified his position. He was merely trying to figure our what he was supposed to learn from his failures. I think he just needs to concentrate a little better on football and a little less on blame…

Book Review | Hush

rabbifink — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:32:06 +0000

This is a review of the book Hush by Eishes Chayil. I paid for the book and received no compensation for this review. (Nor do I want any.)

Last week, my friend Heshy Fried told me about a new book called Hush. Curiosity piqued, I immediately purchased the book from Amazon. It was delivered to my door on Friday afternoon.

After our Friday Night Dinner, I tucked my elder son into bed at 8:30 PM. I sat down with the book and began to read. Three hours later (and several tissues later) I completed the book. The best determination of a good read, is whether I can put the book down. I could not put down Hush. If you stop reading now, just buy the book and read it yourself. (You can buy the book by clicking on this link: Hush)

Hush is a novel about an ancillary victim of sexual abuse in a chasidic community. But it’s not really a novel. The anonymous author writes that the story is based on her own story. Truthfully, the book is based on hundreds of stories and not just stories from the chasidic world. The same story, with a different backdrop can be told by many victims of abuse from almost any insular culture. This includes, inner-city communities, Catholics, Amish and Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

The backdrop for this story is a fictional Chasidic sect in Borough Park. The fictional sect is in the style of the major Chassidic branches in the New York metropolitan area like Satmar, Ger, Vizhnitz and Skver.

The story is mostly told through the eyes of a nine year old girl. To me, this is the charm of the book. Victims of abuse say that their lives can become frozen at the age of the abuse. The nine year old perspective is so innocent on the one hand, so damaged on the other hand, so naive on yet another hand and disturbing on all hands.

There are plenty of villains in Hush, there are plenty of victims too. But only a few heros. This is how it is. Sexual abuse can ravage a community, but it takes a very strong person to be a hero in the face of abuse. Strong people like that are rare and the book demonstrates this sad reality wonderfully.

One of the heroes in Hush is a chasidic newspaper publisher. To me, he represents the bloggers who have done the dirty work of exposing this harm and its perpetrators. On behalf of everyone, thank you. The publisher in this book exposes abuse at his own peril. It shouldn’t be that way. The other hero in the book is the main character’s husband whose unconditional commitment to his wife gave her the strength to prevail under extremely trying circumstances. Enough so that she felt like an Eishes Chayil, a woman of valor, as the pseudonym implies.

Hush has a surprisingly light tone to most of the book. As it is seen through the eyes of a nine year old chasidic girl, the names and places in the book have cute and funny names that ring true to Orthodox Jews. I found myself laughing out loud many times throughout the book.

As to the “meat” of the plot. the community’s approach to allegations of sexual abuse are all too familiar. Insular communities all share a distrust of governmental authority and prefer to self-police. Unfortunately, there is no self-policing of abuse in the book.

Crying is to be expected as one reads Hush. There are moments of heartbreaking sadness and moments of emotional triumph. The book will move its reader to tears throughout the book and by the time the reader is at the climactic ending resistance to crying is futile.

Hush is important. It gives real life victims a voice they can relate to. The voice of the main characters of Hush are familiar to any victim of abuse. In this respect, the book is relevant to victims of abuse in any community.

I am only somewhat familiar, not intimately familiar with the idiosyncrasies and foibles of the chasidic community. But Hush does a spectacular job of drawing you into their community. I can only assume that what is written is accurate. (I would love if a chasidic reader would read Hush and get back to me about the accuracies of the depiction of the chasidic community in Hush.) The worldview portrayed in the book is absolutely terrifying. Anyone that is not exactly like “you” is an enemy or at best a heathen. The self absorption and ignorance about almost everything is shocking. Characters in Hush describe any custom they have as “The Torah say”, even when the Torah certainly does not say the thing they are quoting. Characters in Hush subscribe to every possible superstition Jewish culture has to offer. And perhaps worst of all, every kind of prejudice about “outsiders” that I am sure outsiders can sense in their real life interactions with the community. Characters in Hush have no working knowledge of what most communities call common sense and the facts of life.

Upon reflection, I wonder if these characteristics of the chasidic community, real or imagined for the book, contributed the trauma of sex abuse. Is abuse so horrible that the milieu plays a negligible role? Or perhaps is the abuse exacerbated when you have been trained to think that your community is vastly superior to others in every possible way, that God prefers you over anyone else and misinformation is so prevalent that one has to wonder if it is a vast ignorance conspiracy to maintain allegiance?

It is a question that may not have an answer but I think it is the broader question that is raised in Hush.

I cannot possible give a bigger endorsement for Hush. I recommend you click one of the links on this review and buy the book immediately. Read it. Feel the pain and hurt. Share it with a friend or a spouse and hopefully slowly, together, we can slay this dragon that has been harming our community for far too long.

(This book is for adults. I am not recommending this book for teens. Parents, use your own discretion.)