Did I ever get an earful today! I can’t reveal my source but I can tell you it is someone that I trust that lives and works in a large metropolitan area with a substantial Orthodox population. Unfortunately it more than reinforces my view that there is a Jihad against Modern Orthodoxy. And this is no exaggeration. In his city there is a concerted effort to discredit all dissenters. The pressure from the Right is so strong that there is a literal fear of expressing any dissent at all. Non-Right wing rabbinic leadership is so intimidated in that community that they either agree or they simply just don’t say anything.
Orthodox organizations deemed to be on the “wrong side” of an issue are entirely boycotted, as are their rabbinic leaders. And these are leaders who are not arrogant hot heads with a chip on their shoulders, but Yirei U’Shlamim. In one case a Rav asks Shaylos of a recognized Posek when embarking on communal affairs. But he asks the “wrong Posek”. It is not a Charedi Posek. That puts him on the wrong side of the tracks and makes him a legitimate target.
And the boycott extends beyond the city. The intimidation is so strong that prominent, internationally known Ultra Orthodox speakers, who have accepted speaking engagements over the years, now must turn down invitations to return or back out after accepting because of the pressure from the Right. This was all done behind the scenes. The Orthodox public, unaware is all the poorer for it.
The Right Wing has literally declared a war against Modern Orthodoxy. Most of it is behind the scenes but occasionally it is out in the open, as was the case with the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books. And they are relentless.
But do they really have the high moral ground? Consider the following two incidents:
When my daughter, Sari went to Seminary in Israel it was common practice to exchange dollars for Shekels on the black market. And many Charedim did this professionally, even though it was technically illegal. (I don’t think it is illegal anymore.) My daughter just didn’t think it was right, so before she left for her years in Seminary she asked Rav Aaron Soloveichik a Shaila. His Psak was that it was absolutely Assur to do that. So for her two years in seminary she did all of her money exchanges in the bank.... which was a big pain and gave her a smaller return.
Contrast that with the following. I spoke to a Frum accountant today who told me the following story. In the course of his work he noticed that a lot of his Charedi clients cheated on their taxes. He didn’t think that was right either, so he went to the Charedi Posek in his community and tried to get him to make a Macha’ah. He was told by this Posek that he would not do that and that there are Heterim for cheating on your taxes. And this is a highly recognized and respected Charedi Posek in the Frum world.
Is this the high moral ground they are fighting for?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Toronto
There was a two part article in the Canadian Jewish News dealing with an issue that has been haunting the Torah world for the last couple of years. In truth the issue suggested by the title of the article: “Is Orthodoxy becoming too religiously right-wing?” is really more about a battle between two streams of thought in the Torah world, the Charedi one and the Modern Orthodox one. And the level of discord currently in play between Modern Orthodoxy and the Right Wing is just beginning to show its ugly head.
It is true that the “move to the right” is in part the source for the current state of affairs. This has been building up for many years. But the issue here is about the dichotomy between two distinct groups, with two distinct Hashkafos, both of which are legitmate. And what is happening is an onslaught by a key figure in Ultra Orthodoxy to completely de-legitimize Modern Orthodoxy. And the “Slikin Affair” as it has come to be called, is the gauntlet. It is the issue that has become the epicenter of the controversy.
Those who have banned Rabbi Slifkin’s works and Hashkafos have drawn a line not to be crossed. The “Right” as represented by Toronto's Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Rosh Kollel of Kollel Avreichim seems determined to lop off legitimate segments of Orthodoxy... despite it’s protestations to the contrary. They pretend to be accepting of all segments of Orthodoxy, warmly welcoming everyone into the Kollel Programs. They do, in fact accept everyone… but not their views, if they are anything like Rabbi Slifkin’s. I suppose they try and avoid the subject when dealing with Modern Orthodox Jews who have joined their programs. In essence they treat all MO Jews as though they are all Kiruv projects… too stupid to know the Emes. (Or should I say… “their Emes”). But now it is now out in the open.
No where are the poles of Orthodoxy more apart than in the city of Toronto. Based on the descriptions in both parts of the CJN article, the Right is more on the extreme right and the Left is more extreme left. And that makes things a lot clearer for those of us somewhere in between the two ends of that spectrum.
Although I am sure that wasn’t his intention, Rabbi Shlomo Miller has gone just about further than anyone else in North America to segregate the two communities. His stridency is clear. He has explicitly stated that Rabbi Slifkin’s views as expressed in his banned books are heresy. What is somewhat bewildering is the claim that the letter he wrote declaring it heresy was meant for only is own consitituency.
The implication is that he doesn’t want the Modern Orthodox community to know the Emes. Only his own Ultra Orthodox community need know that. For us “ignoramuses”, it is suffiecent that we remain in ignorant bliss. “Emes” for us be damned! I guess he thinks he will win us over first and then show us the error of our ways. Pretty sickening, if you ask me.
What makes Rabbi Miller’s views significant is the fact that he is on the rise in Agudah circles. He is on a “fast track” to “Gadlus”. Or so I have been told. This means that his views carry weight.
It may not seem like it to the casual observer but what seems to be happening is a virtual war against Modern Orhtodox thinking. Or perhaps it should be considered a war against… thinking! It is a battle for the hearts and minds of Orthodox Jewry. And Rabbi Miller’s attitude is a “take no prisoners” one. Victory has now been defined. One can no longer believe anything but the most fundamentalist views about science and Torah. There is no wiggle room. It is literalist fundamentalism or heresy. Those are the choices.
Of course you will hear denials of this from the Right… denials heard from the very start of thie ontroversy: Only the “views” are heresy, Those who happen to believe them are not heretics, however. I guess we’re just too stupid to realize the Emes.
Well, that isn’t going to fly. There are far too many people who are sincere believers. They believe in the Mesorah. They have been educated in the finest of Yeshivos. Many are quite knowledgeable, both in Limudei Kodesh and Limudei Chol. Some are even card carrying members of the RW and Agudah.
As a thinking member of Klal Yisroel, I have a message for the “Right”: You are not going to be able to “write us off". You cannot just say our views are heresy, but we are not heretics… because we are not stupid or ignorant! You are going to have to declare vast amounts of serious religious, Orthodox Jews to be Heretics.
I have often said that Charedim are the wave of the future, and I still believe that. But that does not mean that all Charedim are of Rabbi Miller’s mindset. Those who do not march in lockstep with his views are not going to disappear or be forced into denying strongly held beliefs. And by the strident, unforgiving insistence by the Right on literalist, fundementlist views, they are the ones who are responsible for the current decline of Kavod HaTorah.
One more thing. Toronto’s Dr. Immanuel Schochet, a prominent figure in Lubavitch has weighed in on the controversy in the CJN article. In typical Lubavitch doublespeak he tries to feign a sort of Elu v’Elu approach. But don’t be fooled. He hints at his real position in the article when he says: “Not that I necessarily disagree with their (Rabbi Miller et al) views”.
Guess what? He entirely agrees with them. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was as much of a fundamentalist as Rabbi Miller… perhaps even more. And there is no such thing as a Lubavitcher disagreeing with the Rebbe. He sounds conciliatory, but in reality he is only condemning tactics. That should be made clear to those who think he is tolerant of an "ancient universe" view. He most definitely is not.
It is true that the “move to the right” is in part the source for the current state of affairs. This has been building up for many years. But the issue here is about the dichotomy between two distinct groups, with two distinct Hashkafos, both of which are legitmate. And what is happening is an onslaught by a key figure in Ultra Orthodoxy to completely de-legitimize Modern Orthodoxy. And the “Slikin Affair” as it has come to be called, is the gauntlet. It is the issue that has become the epicenter of the controversy.
Those who have banned Rabbi Slifkin’s works and Hashkafos have drawn a line not to be crossed. The “Right” as represented by Toronto's Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Rosh Kollel of Kollel Avreichim seems determined to lop off legitimate segments of Orthodoxy... despite it’s protestations to the contrary. They pretend to be accepting of all segments of Orthodoxy, warmly welcoming everyone into the Kollel Programs. They do, in fact accept everyone… but not their views, if they are anything like Rabbi Slifkin’s. I suppose they try and avoid the subject when dealing with Modern Orthodox Jews who have joined their programs. In essence they treat all MO Jews as though they are all Kiruv projects… too stupid to know the Emes. (Or should I say… “their Emes”). But now it is now out in the open.
No where are the poles of Orthodoxy more apart than in the city of Toronto. Based on the descriptions in both parts of the CJN article, the Right is more on the extreme right and the Left is more extreme left. And that makes things a lot clearer for those of us somewhere in between the two ends of that spectrum.
Although I am sure that wasn’t his intention, Rabbi Shlomo Miller has gone just about further than anyone else in North America to segregate the two communities. His stridency is clear. He has explicitly stated that Rabbi Slifkin’s views as expressed in his banned books are heresy. What is somewhat bewildering is the claim that the letter he wrote declaring it heresy was meant for only is own consitituency.
The implication is that he doesn’t want the Modern Orthodox community to know the Emes. Only his own Ultra Orthodox community need know that. For us “ignoramuses”, it is suffiecent that we remain in ignorant bliss. “Emes” for us be damned! I guess he thinks he will win us over first and then show us the error of our ways. Pretty sickening, if you ask me.
What makes Rabbi Miller’s views significant is the fact that he is on the rise in Agudah circles. He is on a “fast track” to “Gadlus”. Or so I have been told. This means that his views carry weight.
It may not seem like it to the casual observer but what seems to be happening is a virtual war against Modern Orhtodox thinking. Or perhaps it should be considered a war against… thinking! It is a battle for the hearts and minds of Orthodox Jewry. And Rabbi Miller’s attitude is a “take no prisoners” one. Victory has now been defined. One can no longer believe anything but the most fundamentalist views about science and Torah. There is no wiggle room. It is literalist fundamentalism or heresy. Those are the choices.
Of course you will hear denials of this from the Right… denials heard from the very start of thie ontroversy: Only the “views” are heresy, Those who happen to believe them are not heretics, however. I guess we’re just too stupid to realize the Emes.
Well, that isn’t going to fly. There are far too many people who are sincere believers. They believe in the Mesorah. They have been educated in the finest of Yeshivos. Many are quite knowledgeable, both in Limudei Kodesh and Limudei Chol. Some are even card carrying members of the RW and Agudah.
As a thinking member of Klal Yisroel, I have a message for the “Right”: You are not going to be able to “write us off". You cannot just say our views are heresy, but we are not heretics… because we are not stupid or ignorant! You are going to have to declare vast amounts of serious religious, Orthodox Jews to be Heretics.
I have often said that Charedim are the wave of the future, and I still believe that. But that does not mean that all Charedim are of Rabbi Miller’s mindset. Those who do not march in lockstep with his views are not going to disappear or be forced into denying strongly held beliefs. And by the strident, unforgiving insistence by the Right on literalist, fundementlist views, they are the ones who are responsible for the current decline of Kavod HaTorah.
One more thing. Toronto’s Dr. Immanuel Schochet, a prominent figure in Lubavitch has weighed in on the controversy in the CJN article. In typical Lubavitch doublespeak he tries to feign a sort of Elu v’Elu approach. But don’t be fooled. He hints at his real position in the article when he says: “Not that I necessarily disagree with their (Rabbi Miller et al) views”.
Guess what? He entirely agrees with them. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was as much of a fundamentalist as Rabbi Miller… perhaps even more. And there is no such thing as a Lubavitcher disagreeing with the Rebbe. He sounds conciliatory, but in reality he is only condemning tactics. That should be made clear to those who think he is tolerant of an "ancient universe" view. He most definitely is not.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Louis Finkelstein
That was quick! Never underestimate the power of my readers. Or... I guess it was just too easy
Yes, the identity of the individual in my last post is none other than Dr. Louis Finkelstein, long term Chancellor of JTS during its most formative years. It is remarkably similar to that of Bernard Revel, founding president of Yeshiva college, precursor of Yeshiva University: Both from Lithuania, both having achieved PhDs, both heading rabbinical seminaries (JTS and REITS) and both strongly shaping their character and destiny.
The thing about Dr. Finkelstein is that he definitely seems to have wanted to keep JTS Halachic. There were strong influences in its formative years to steer JTS away from being a Halachic movement. Louis Finkelstein would have none of that. He championed the views of Dr. Louis Ginzberg, who was the proponent of Halacha against all the non Halachic views of other founders. And he fought mightily to keep it that way.
Yet, Dr. Finkelstein accepted his position at JTS long after Solomon Schechter’s innovation of critical scholarship. It makes you wonder, however, how he could have given any legitimacy to biblical criticism which was the death knell to any hope JTS had achieving acceptance within Orthodoxy. How one can be the caliber of Torah scholar that a Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzberg were and at the same time not believe in Torah MiSinai is one of the most perplexing things about these gentlemen.
In light of the fact that JTS accepted biblical criticism, it is astounding that there was ever any serious consideration of JTS and Yeshiva University merging. Though it was eventually rejected, the fact that it was even considered makes me wonder about whether critical scholarship was always considered as heretical as it is today, although I don’t know how it’s possible to say that. Torah MiSinai is fundemental.
It also makes me wonder why the likes of Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzburg ever accepted it… or whether they personally rejected it and just tolerated it in an attempt to further along their real agenda of producing a prototype American rabbi that they saw as critical to "saving" Judaism from the forces of Reform. If that’s true, was it the right thing to do? Not in the sense of Halchaic Psak which goes against any such endeavor, but on a purely ideological level? In other words, can it be said that svara of mitoch shelo lishma Bah Lishma was used by them as justification?
It is so interesting to me that people with the kind of backgrounds, the level of intelligence, the obvious love of learning and love of Judaism as these gentleman had… chose to be involved with JTS. Was it out of conviction? Or out of parnassa? Both?
How did they deal with the strident rejection of Conservative Judaism by Orthodoxy? Can we say about them that even though they erred, they meant well? Were they L’Shem Shamayim? Does it even matter? Or should they be judged harshly? As Talmidei Chachamim should they have rejected the movement as other Talmidei Chachamim had?
Did their good intentions put them in good stead in heaven? Or was it the “devil’s” work? And doesn’t matter since the Conservative Movement help lead to the destruction of Torah observance by most of American Jewry. These are all unanswered questions to me.
Professor Saul Lieberman joined the faculty relatively late. He too was a big Talmid Chacham and I’m fairly certain he did not personally believe in critical scholarship himself. But did lending his prestige to JTS give it more credence leading even more Jews astray? Or did his presence there help to guide some of the better and more sincere students to a more observant lifestyle?
The Conservative movement has always been an enigma to me. I never know what to think about it. I know …and have often said that… it is an apostate movement. But is it a movement that had good intentions that just went awry? Or was it a movement that should have never been started? Of course we now have 20/20 hindsight so the answer seems fairly easy: No. But they didn’t know that back in the early years of a movement designed to “conserve” Judaism. Can We Be Dan L’Kaf Zechus to those early pioneers?
Yes, the identity of the individual in my last post is none other than Dr. Louis Finkelstein, long term Chancellor of JTS during its most formative years. It is remarkably similar to that of Bernard Revel, founding president of Yeshiva college, precursor of Yeshiva University: Both from Lithuania, both having achieved PhDs, both heading rabbinical seminaries (JTS and REITS) and both strongly shaping their character and destiny.
The thing about Dr. Finkelstein is that he definitely seems to have wanted to keep JTS Halachic. There were strong influences in its formative years to steer JTS away from being a Halachic movement. Louis Finkelstein would have none of that. He championed the views of Dr. Louis Ginzberg, who was the proponent of Halacha against all the non Halachic views of other founders. And he fought mightily to keep it that way.
Yet, Dr. Finkelstein accepted his position at JTS long after Solomon Schechter’s innovation of critical scholarship. It makes you wonder, however, how he could have given any legitimacy to biblical criticism which was the death knell to any hope JTS had achieving acceptance within Orthodoxy. How one can be the caliber of Torah scholar that a Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzberg were and at the same time not believe in Torah MiSinai is one of the most perplexing things about these gentlemen.
In light of the fact that JTS accepted biblical criticism, it is astounding that there was ever any serious consideration of JTS and Yeshiva University merging. Though it was eventually rejected, the fact that it was even considered makes me wonder about whether critical scholarship was always considered as heretical as it is today, although I don’t know how it’s possible to say that. Torah MiSinai is fundemental.
It also makes me wonder why the likes of Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzburg ever accepted it… or whether they personally rejected it and just tolerated it in an attempt to further along their real agenda of producing a prototype American rabbi that they saw as critical to "saving" Judaism from the forces of Reform. If that’s true, was it the right thing to do? Not in the sense of Halchaic Psak which goes against any such endeavor, but on a purely ideological level? In other words, can it be said that svara of mitoch shelo lishma Bah Lishma was used by them as justification?
It is so interesting to me that people with the kind of backgrounds, the level of intelligence, the obvious love of learning and love of Judaism as these gentleman had… chose to be involved with JTS. Was it out of conviction? Or out of parnassa? Both?
How did they deal with the strident rejection of Conservative Judaism by Orthodoxy? Can we say about them that even though they erred, they meant well? Were they L’Shem Shamayim? Does it even matter? Or should they be judged harshly? As Talmidei Chachamim should they have rejected the movement as other Talmidei Chachamim had?
Did their good intentions put them in good stead in heaven? Or was it the “devil’s” work? And doesn’t matter since the Conservative Movement help lead to the destruction of Torah observance by most of American Jewry. These are all unanswered questions to me.
Professor Saul Lieberman joined the faculty relatively late. He too was a big Talmid Chacham and I’m fairly certain he did not personally believe in critical scholarship himself. But did lending his prestige to JTS give it more credence leading even more Jews astray? Or did his presence there help to guide some of the better and more sincere students to a more observant lifestyle?
The Conservative movement has always been an enigma to me. I never know what to think about it. I know …and have often said that… it is an apostate movement. But is it a movement that had good intentions that just went awry? Or was it a movement that should have never been started? Of course we now have 20/20 hindsight so the answer seems fairly easy: No. But they didn’t know that back in the early years of a movement designed to “conserve” Judaism. Can We Be Dan L’Kaf Zechus to those early pioneers?
Who Am I?
There is a fascinating biography that was linked to a blog which I frequent. It is about an individual who has made a huge impact on American Jewry. My interest in this individual goes back many years as does my interest in the movement he helped mold and which continues to have impact to this very day, albeit it has seen some troubles as of late.
What makes it fascinating is the contrast between what his ideals and goals for the movement were and what they are now as they continue to evolve. I have decided to post the first portion of his biography here. (The entire bio is way too long and beyond the scope of this post.) I have changed the name of the individual, the name of the institution he headed and a few key words that would give his identity away. Other than that, the bio is intact.
I wonder how many people would recognize this individual, the institution he headed, or the movement he represented. I am curious to see if anyone can guess. I only ask that those of you who have seen the website this is taken from to not give it away. My question is, what say ye about this individual, based on this bio? Is someone with these credentials someone we can respect and admire? Is he not the classic adherent of Torah uMada? In any case, here is the bio:
The seeds for the leader that Simcha Chadash (not his real name) came to be and for the values that guided his life both personally and professionally were sown in the home of his parents and in the upbringing they gave to him, the fourth of their five children. After having immigrated to America from a small Lithuanian city, Rabbi and Mrs. Chadash settled in Cincinnati, Ohio, where their son Simcha was born, after which they all moved to the Brownsville section of New York City. Young Simcha learned much and quickly from his father who was an Orthodox rabbi.
At the age of sixteen Simcha already had an extensive knowledge of the Torah and had already mastered several tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. This love for learning continued throughout his life. In fact, when anyone visited his home before or after his retirement from the Yeshiva in 1972, they would usually find him engaged in his studies. Indeed, it was well known among his colleagues that his typical day began at 5:00 a.m. when he would rise early to devote serious time to the study of the Jewish texts. This commitment to daily study served as a source of comfort to him when he later assumed the mantle of leadership of the Yeshiva. Faced with the usual challenges of administration, he wrote to a friend: "I don't know how I would be able to carry on at all, if I did not find comfort in the great Jewish classics ..." On another occasion he observed: "I can't remember a time, ..., when anything meant more [to me] than the study of the law."
In addition to his studies with his father, Simcha attended public high school after which he enrolled, simultaneously, at the Yeshiva and the City College of New York. He excelled in his Yeshiva studies earning a heter hora'a in 1919, from one of the leading Talmudists of his day. He was the first Yeshiva student to have graduated with that advanced rabbinic degree, permitting him to render legal decisions in matters of Jewish law. After graduating from City College in 1915, he began his doctoral studies which culminated in a Ph.D degree from Columbia University in 1918.
What makes it fascinating is the contrast between what his ideals and goals for the movement were and what they are now as they continue to evolve. I have decided to post the first portion of his biography here. (The entire bio is way too long and beyond the scope of this post.) I have changed the name of the individual, the name of the institution he headed and a few key words that would give his identity away. Other than that, the bio is intact.
I wonder how many people would recognize this individual, the institution he headed, or the movement he represented. I am curious to see if anyone can guess. I only ask that those of you who have seen the website this is taken from to not give it away. My question is, what say ye about this individual, based on this bio? Is someone with these credentials someone we can respect and admire? Is he not the classic adherent of Torah uMada? In any case, here is the bio:
The seeds for the leader that Simcha Chadash (not his real name) came to be and for the values that guided his life both personally and professionally were sown in the home of his parents and in the upbringing they gave to him, the fourth of their five children. After having immigrated to America from a small Lithuanian city, Rabbi and Mrs. Chadash settled in Cincinnati, Ohio, where their son Simcha was born, after which they all moved to the Brownsville section of New York City. Young Simcha learned much and quickly from his father who was an Orthodox rabbi.
At the age of sixteen Simcha already had an extensive knowledge of the Torah and had already mastered several tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. This love for learning continued throughout his life. In fact, when anyone visited his home before or after his retirement from the Yeshiva in 1972, they would usually find him engaged in his studies. Indeed, it was well known among his colleagues that his typical day began at 5:00 a.m. when he would rise early to devote serious time to the study of the Jewish texts. This commitment to daily study served as a source of comfort to him when he later assumed the mantle of leadership of the Yeshiva. Faced with the usual challenges of administration, he wrote to a friend: "I don't know how I would be able to carry on at all, if I did not find comfort in the great Jewish classics ..." On another occasion he observed: "I can't remember a time, ..., when anything meant more [to me] than the study of the law."
In addition to his studies with his father, Simcha attended public high school after which he enrolled, simultaneously, at the Yeshiva and the City College of New York. He excelled in his Yeshiva studies earning a heter hora'a in 1919, from one of the leading Talmudists of his day. He was the first Yeshiva student to have graduated with that advanced rabbinic degree, permitting him to render legal decisions in matters of Jewish law. After graduating from City College in 1915, he began his doctoral studies which culminated in a Ph.D degree from Columbia University in 1918.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Blood and Prayer
This is from the Office of Rabbi Kook, Rehovot and was forwarded to an e-mail list to which I belong. It read in part:
"To our dear fellow Jews,"
“With special emphasize to those who joined with us in praying to Hashem for the safe deliverance of all our fighters and refugees from the battlefront during the "three weeks" both in Lebanon and in Northern Israel.”
“Please accept our outpouring of emotion having seen how over thirty thousand undertook and prayed and accepted upon themselves to do more mitzvoth for the sake of all of Klal Yisroel and for specific individual souls of Klal Yisroel.”
It goes on to speak of the spiritual faith and belief displayed by so many, …to ask for divine assistance not for themselves but for unknown others… the rare and unusual display of solidarity and brotherhood… All well and good.
It ends with a request that we continue to pray for the welfare of world Jewry and in particular for those who find themselves in harms way. Especially for those injured during this war and those special three still in brutal uncivilized captivity and it is signed: The Admor of Boston and The Chief Rabbi of Rehovot.
Yes. Prayer helps. And few need it more than my own grandson, Reuven, and I am very gratified for all the many Teffilos he is getting. And YES! …we should continue to pray for the welfare of all in Klal Yisroel. But yet…
I can't help it.
I know I am supposed to feel good that so many people daven'd for the sake of all of Klal Yisroel during this war. And indeed at one level I am. That is as it should be.
But I can't help thinking that all the Tehillim in the world does not compensate for the mother and father who had a son killed or maimed while fighting the physical battle. It just doesn't sit well with me that some must put their lives in danger while others don't have to.
Not one Yeshiva student died or was injured on the battlefield. Not one.
After they cry our their hearts out, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of Yeshivaleit did just that, they get to go home to their wives and children and can look forward to many long, happy, and healthy lives. Barring any illness or accident, they will likely live on to see their children grown, get married and have children of their own. But to those who are killed or injured in battle that will not be the case. Those families whose fathers, husbands, or sons have been killed in battle will not be able to just get on with their lives. Those men will not be coming back to their families. And for those who are maimed, their lives and those of their loved ones will never be the same.
It just doesn't seem right that some are being forced to leave their families and go to the front while others are completely exempt... nay, ...FORBBIDEN... to fight! I can't help thinking that there is something wrong with this picture.
It is one thing to say that the spiritual warriors are as important as the physical ones. That is true. But the fact happens to be that the spiritual warriors are spared any harm in battle. Buckets of legitimate tears can be shed… and then they go home unscathed. And that simply is not fair, in my view.
This has nothing to do with being Charedi. It has to do with death and injury and who is and who is not being required to sacrifice life and limb.
I cannot get beyond this simple fact.
"To our dear fellow Jews,"
“With special emphasize to those who joined with us in praying to Hashem for the safe deliverance of all our fighters and refugees from the battlefront during the "three weeks" both in Lebanon and in Northern Israel.”
“Please accept our outpouring of emotion having seen how over thirty thousand undertook and prayed and accepted upon themselves to do more mitzvoth for the sake of all of Klal Yisroel and for specific individual souls of Klal Yisroel.”
It goes on to speak of the spiritual faith and belief displayed by so many, …to ask for divine assistance not for themselves but for unknown others… the rare and unusual display of solidarity and brotherhood… All well and good.
It ends with a request that we continue to pray for the welfare of world Jewry and in particular for those who find themselves in harms way. Especially for those injured during this war and those special three still in brutal uncivilized captivity and it is signed: The Admor of Boston and The Chief Rabbi of Rehovot.
Yes. Prayer helps. And few need it more than my own grandson, Reuven, and I am very gratified for all the many Teffilos he is getting. And YES! …we should continue to pray for the welfare of all in Klal Yisroel. But yet…
I can't help it.
I know I am supposed to feel good that so many people daven'd for the sake of all of Klal Yisroel during this war. And indeed at one level I am. That is as it should be.
But I can't help thinking that all the Tehillim in the world does not compensate for the mother and father who had a son killed or maimed while fighting the physical battle. It just doesn't sit well with me that some must put their lives in danger while others don't have to.
Not one Yeshiva student died or was injured on the battlefield. Not one.
After they cry our their hearts out, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of Yeshivaleit did just that, they get to go home to their wives and children and can look forward to many long, happy, and healthy lives. Barring any illness or accident, they will likely live on to see their children grown, get married and have children of their own. But to those who are killed or injured in battle that will not be the case. Those families whose fathers, husbands, or sons have been killed in battle will not be able to just get on with their lives. Those men will not be coming back to their families. And for those who are maimed, their lives and those of their loved ones will never be the same.
It just doesn't seem right that some are being forced to leave their families and go to the front while others are completely exempt... nay, ...FORBBIDEN... to fight! I can't help thinking that there is something wrong with this picture.
It is one thing to say that the spiritual warriors are as important as the physical ones. That is true. But the fact happens to be that the spiritual warriors are spared any harm in battle. Buckets of legitimate tears can be shed… and then they go home unscathed. And that simply is not fair, in my view.
This has nothing to do with being Charedi. It has to do with death and injury and who is and who is not being required to sacrifice life and limb.
I cannot get beyond this simple fact.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, ZTL
Question: What does HaRav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, ZTL and Dr. David Berger have in common?
Answer: Not that much. They are actually on diametrically opposite sides of the Orthodox Hashakfic spectrum. For example on the very important issue of secular studies Rav Shach’s views which carry the day in the Charedi world, have done great harm to the fabric of Torah Judaism in Israel in my view, as I have written about here in the past. Rav Shach has forbidden any Charedi Yeshiva high school to incorporate any form of secular studies into its curriculum at any level. He even went so far as to excommunicate Maarava, a Charedi Yeshiva high school in Israel which has been established with a secular studies curriculum. I’m not sure if the Cherem stuck, but it is certainly off limits to any card carrying Charedi parent (…although many students from Maarava have been accepted to high caliber Charedi Yeshivos post high school).
Dr. Berger, is a professor at Brooklyn College and therefore, quite obviously very supportive of secular education. So what do they have in common? They have in common one of the most important issues of our time: the complete dedication to battle the false Messianism of Lubavitch. They are one and the same on this issue and they are (were) virtually alone in this battle. It is quite remarkable that two people with such widely differing Hashkafos are of one mind on this issue.
In a recent edition of the Internet Yated, Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz, tells the fascinating story of Rav Shach’s battle against the false Messianism of Lubavitch. He describes Rav Shach’s lonely fight and …why… it was so lonely. It was because no one else was willing to put up the fight. Just as Dr. Berger has maintained. And now that Rav Shach is gone, Dr. Berger seems to be the only one willing to continue making the case that the situation is worse than it seems. It behooves all those who are in doubt about how serious the problem should be taken, to read this article. It is also an interesting footnote to this story that the Yated was in essence founded because of this very issue. A very informative article, indeed.
Though the Yated is responsible for some of the worst journalism of the civilized world, I think it is safe to say that the story written on this issue is a fairly accurate history of Rav’ Shach’s position. In fact that is the very basis of the Yated’s editorial philosophy: Rav Shach's position. At least there was one Gadol who was willing to fight the fight and put his money where his mouth was. Why aren't there more?
Answer: Not that much. They are actually on diametrically opposite sides of the Orthodox Hashakfic spectrum. For example on the very important issue of secular studies Rav Shach’s views which carry the day in the Charedi world, have done great harm to the fabric of Torah Judaism in Israel in my view, as I have written about here in the past. Rav Shach has forbidden any Charedi Yeshiva high school to incorporate any form of secular studies into its curriculum at any level. He even went so far as to excommunicate Maarava, a Charedi Yeshiva high school in Israel which has been established with a secular studies curriculum. I’m not sure if the Cherem stuck, but it is certainly off limits to any card carrying Charedi parent (…although many students from Maarava have been accepted to high caliber Charedi Yeshivos post high school).
Dr. Berger, is a professor at Brooklyn College and therefore, quite obviously very supportive of secular education. So what do they have in common? They have in common one of the most important issues of our time: the complete dedication to battle the false Messianism of Lubavitch. They are one and the same on this issue and they are (were) virtually alone in this battle. It is quite remarkable that two people with such widely differing Hashkafos are of one mind on this issue.
In a recent edition of the Internet Yated, Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz, tells the fascinating story of Rav Shach’s battle against the false Messianism of Lubavitch. He describes Rav Shach’s lonely fight and …why… it was so lonely. It was because no one else was willing to put up the fight. Just as Dr. Berger has maintained. And now that Rav Shach is gone, Dr. Berger seems to be the only one willing to continue making the case that the situation is worse than it seems. It behooves all those who are in doubt about how serious the problem should be taken, to read this article. It is also an interesting footnote to this story that the Yated was in essence founded because of this very issue. A very informative article, indeed.
Though the Yated is responsible for some of the worst journalism of the civilized world, I think it is safe to say that the story written on this issue is a fairly accurate history of Rav’ Shach’s position. In fact that is the very basis of the Yated’s editorial philosophy: Rav Shach's position. At least there was one Gadol who was willing to fight the fight and put his money where his mouth was. Why aren't there more?
Friday, August 25, 2006
Ewing’s Sarcoma
This is a photograph of Reuven and his two brothers, Avraham and Elisha. Reuven is on the left. He has Ewing’s Sarcoma. And it is at stage four. That means that it has metastasized, spreading to another organ. The lesion on his lung first seen in the MRI (done last Shabbos) was removed and analyzed yesterday. It was found to be of the same cancer type as the original lesion that was found on his left humerus bone. This was a devastating blow to all of us. You can’t imagine what it was like getting this news.
But stage four Ewing’s is not necessarily lethal. Rueven has several things in his favor.
First his age. Younger children have better event-free survival than older adolescents and young adults.
Also the fact that his bone scan was clean and the bone marrow tests showed no evidence of disease is also a plus.
And the fact that the metastasis was on the lung is a plus too. It has been observed in clinical studies that with intensive therapy, survival in patients with Ewing’s who have only pulmonary metastases is higher than for patients with bone or bone marrow metastases.
And over the last 20 years there has been dramatic progress in the chemotherapeutic protocols. It has been found that the overall survival is markedly improved when multiagent intensive chemotherapy is done. The 5-year survival is as much as 70% in many large studies. But these are study based statistics. The over-all general survival statistics rates are 30% – 40%
We are cautiously optimistic. Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St Louis is one of the highest rated Hospitals in the country. And Reuven’s doctor is one of the top pediatric oncologists in that hospital. The multi agent chemotherapy begins early next week. It will be combined with an additional protocol that is currently under study. It involves heavy doses. It will be of one year duration and administered in a vaired manner every week requiring a hospital stay every fourth week. There will likely be side effects. His immune system will be weakened and he will be more prone to infection.
It will be very hard for Reuven, but perhaps even harder for his father and mother. And his grandparents, aunts and uncles. But we are all determined to do what’s necessary to see this through and pray to HaShem Yisborach for a complete Refuah Shlaima for my grandson.
I will be posting occasional updates here, when warranted.
I want to thank the wonderful Jewish community in St. Louis, which has been most outstanding in their empathy and support, both in substance and emotionally. They are there for my family. Words fail me. It is truly inspiring. I want to also express my thanks to the Hospital staff. They too have handled the situation with the kindness and caring that I didn’t think existed anymore. And I would like to express my family’s appreciation to all those who have sent comments and private e-mails wishing Reuven a Refuah Sheleima… have said Teffilos, …have made MiSheberachs… have helped put Rueven on numerous Tehillim lists …have given his name to rabbinic leaders here and in Israel… and even those who have simply kept him in your thoughts. Here, too, I am at a loss for words. The outpouring of sympathy and good wishes has been very heartwarming. And it has come from all segments of Jewry. I cannot thank you enough.
Reuven needs a Siyata D’Shmaya more than ever now. Please keep him and my family in your hearts and in your prayers.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Orthodox Feminism
I have very often stated that I am a feminist. And that is true. I have explained that my feminism is based on the belief that economic opportunity and compensation in the workplace is an ideal which I subscribe to. As is the ideal that women should be treated with the same respect as men are socially. One sex should never be considered superior to another.
But I am not an Orthodox feminist. I do not believe that feminist ideals as currently understood are compatible with Torah ideals and should not be applied to a Torah society. This was the message behind much of my last post. And for this reason I am opposed to novel ways of connecting to God that are feminist in origin, such as Women’s Teffilah Groups.
This does not mean to say that all women who participate in Women’s Teffila Groups are themselves motivated by feminism. Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet that many of these women are sincere and do not think that feminism has anything to do it. What I am saying, however, is that the very idea that women need to find a traditionally male modality to express their connection to God smacks of feminist origins. Is it really true that many women today may feel more fulfilled if thy adopt some of the traditionally male practices? I think that in a world so permeated with feminist ideals many have been unduly and unwittingly influenced by it and bring it into the Torah world.
Many if not most of these women are L'shma. But why exactly are they choosing male modalities to express themselves at this point in history? Isn’t reasonable to say that feminism has at least something to do with it? And should it be feminism that motivates a woman or should it be doing God’s will that motivates her? Isn’t it better to find our what God wants of us and do that, rather than to search for something that is more "meaningful" to… ourselves?
Let us look at our mothers and grandmothers. Were they so backward that adopting male worship practices didn't occur to them? Did they not rise to great spiritual heights without adopting male practices…in their God given roles as women with their own set of Mitzvos plus those shared with men? Let us even look at contemporary Charedi women. How many of these women look towards fulfillment by adopting male practices? Is there even one Charedi woman who wishes she could be a Shaliach Tzibur? Isn’t it reasonable to say that they have no real desire to do so because their exposure to feminism is so miniscule?
Does a woman really have to get an Aliyah L'Torah in order to feel fulfilled as a woman... and servant of God? Why would any woman even think of doing that? Isn’t it reasonable to say that it is the feminist Zeitgeist that is driving this energy, at least subconsciously? I think it is. And that’s what makes it wrong to me. Once there is another agenda driving things then tradition becomes secondary and all manner of compromise starts seeping into religious practice.
Service to God has as its priority trying to do what is right in the eyes of God. All of us, men and women alike, would do well to make that our primary motivation. Our energy shouldn't be spent looking for ways to fulfill our own conceptions of serving God. Self fulfillment should only be a secondary concern. While feeling good about serving God is preferable it is not primary. What is primary is doing what God wants of us. That should guide our actions towards Him, not Orthodox Feminism.
But I am not an Orthodox feminist. I do not believe that feminist ideals as currently understood are compatible with Torah ideals and should not be applied to a Torah society. This was the message behind much of my last post. And for this reason I am opposed to novel ways of connecting to God that are feminist in origin, such as Women’s Teffilah Groups.
This does not mean to say that all women who participate in Women’s Teffila Groups are themselves motivated by feminism. Not at all. In fact I'd be willing to bet that many of these women are sincere and do not think that feminism has anything to do it. What I am saying, however, is that the very idea that women need to find a traditionally male modality to express their connection to God smacks of feminist origins. Is it really true that many women today may feel more fulfilled if thy adopt some of the traditionally male practices? I think that in a world so permeated with feminist ideals many have been unduly and unwittingly influenced by it and bring it into the Torah world.
Many if not most of these women are L'shma. But why exactly are they choosing male modalities to express themselves at this point in history? Isn’t reasonable to say that feminism has at least something to do with it? And should it be feminism that motivates a woman or should it be doing God’s will that motivates her? Isn’t it better to find our what God wants of us and do that, rather than to search for something that is more "meaningful" to… ourselves?
Let us look at our mothers and grandmothers. Were they so backward that adopting male worship practices didn't occur to them? Did they not rise to great spiritual heights without adopting male practices…in their God given roles as women with their own set of Mitzvos plus those shared with men? Let us even look at contemporary Charedi women. How many of these women look towards fulfillment by adopting male practices? Is there even one Charedi woman who wishes she could be a Shaliach Tzibur? Isn’t it reasonable to say that they have no real desire to do so because their exposure to feminism is so miniscule?
Does a woman really have to get an Aliyah L'Torah in order to feel fulfilled as a woman... and servant of God? Why would any woman even think of doing that? Isn’t it reasonable to say that it is the feminist Zeitgeist that is driving this energy, at least subconsciously? I think it is. And that’s what makes it wrong to me. Once there is another agenda driving things then tradition becomes secondary and all manner of compromise starts seeping into religious practice.
Service to God has as its priority trying to do what is right in the eyes of God. All of us, men and women alike, would do well to make that our primary motivation. Our energy shouldn't be spent looking for ways to fulfill our own conceptions of serving God. Self fulfillment should only be a secondary concern. While feeling good about serving God is preferable it is not primary. What is primary is doing what God wants of us. That should guide our actions towards Him, not Orthodox Feminism.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Edah, YCT, UTJ, and Feminism
There were some very interesting comments to my last post which raises a very good question: What is the difference in ideology between UTJ and YCT/Edah? I do not see any ideological differences at all. Now it is true that I am not really that familiar with the exact ideologies of either but it is plain to see that in practice, they appear to be the same and have similar goals. They both seem to be animated by feminist concerns. Aside from the fact that they both stem from radically different ideologies: YCT/Edah from Orthodoxy and UTJ from the Conservative Movement... their respective institutions seem to have virtually the same “look”. Both accept Torah MiSinai and both claim to be adherents of Halacha, and indeed I think they try to stay within those parameters, albeit stretching the limits.
KOE, which is the UTJ shul (defacto, if not dejure) ..has a Mechitza, but hardly one any traditionally Orthodox Jew would feel comfortable with. If I am not mistaken the Mechitza goes right down the middle and crosses the Bimah so that woman can get Aliyos. I am not sure of the Halachic permissibility of that but I’m sure if one tries hard enough one can find sources allowing some sort of scenario where that is permitted... perhaps without a Bracha... or not during actual Kriyas Hatorah... I don’t know. But the idea is that they stay Halachic and it is why they even bother with any Mechitza at all. And KOE just hired a female “rabbinic” figure to lead their Kehhila: From the article in the New York Times:
“Ms. Najman (pronounced NIGH-man), 38, a wife, a mother of three and an expert in Jewish bioethics, will become the spiritual leader of Kehilat Orach Eliezer, a small Upper West Side congregation. She will not be called rabbi; instead, she has been given the title of rosh kehillah, or head of congregation.”
The fact that they do not call her rabbi is an attempt to stay Halachic. (Although many would say it is a failed attempt.)
Compare that to YCT founder, Rabbi Avi Weiss’s Shul, the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (HIR). He instituted a rabbinic intern program that trains women to function as defacto rabbis, only without the title. They do not technically violate any Halachic dictates and do only what women are allowed to do in a Shul, but they stretch that to the limit. Here, too, it is an attempt to stay within the parameters of Halacha. What’s the real difference between KOE and HIR? I see none.
In both cases the motivation seems clear. The most glaring commonality between the two groups is their concession to the radical feminist agenda. And I emphasize radical because I, too, am a feminist. I believe that in the area of the workplace and in matters of treating the sexes fairly and equally, there should be no difference in our approach to men or women.
But I part company with those who take feminism to an extreme and impose its doctrines in areas of Halacha. Although I agree that one can find legitimate loopholes in Halacha to accommodate feminism, there are lines that should not be crossed, especially if the primary motivation is feminist. Tradition matters. Minhag can be very important, and changing Minhag to accommodate an anti-Torah agenda (which at its core is one of the goals of radical feminism) is wrong.
This is why I am against Women’s Teffilah groups, for example. Though there is a Halachic way for them to exist the motivation is so obviously feminist that it overrides anything positive that may result. Any Kavanah in Avodas HaLev (Davening) that may result is secondary to the fact that a foreign and anti Torah ideology is behind it and has imbedded itself into the Torah world.
And it is foreign to Torah. Because radical feminism believes that equality of the sexes overrides any other ideal, religious or otherwise. Radical feminism wants the world to be blind to the sexes. There are no “roles for men and roles for women. They are interchangeable. Even the physical differences of the sexes are minimized by them. And psychological differences are completely denied. Even those who are sympathetic to their cause pay a heavy price if they even suggest the possibility that there is are psychological differences. Ask ex-Harvard president, Lawrence Summers. He did not walk in lock-step with them and ...he's gone! Female rabbis... absolutely... Halacha... secondary and always trumped by the radical femisit ideology.
We cannot allow this type mentality to creep into the Torah world. We cannot allow it to enter the holy parameters of a Torah nation, even if it does so through the side door of a Halachic loophole.
But UTJ and YCT/Edah don’t mind doing that at all, no matter how radical it is to traditional practice. It does not bother them that the motivation of those who push for such reforms are motivated by the tenets of the radical feminist agenda, even if they do not fully realize it and feel sincere in there motivations.
I think this is one reason that UTJ and YCT/Edah has not yet been... nor will they be successful. One cannot always say “Where there is a rabbinic will, there is a Halachic way” which is kind of an Eis Laasos argument for the times. We are not in such a time now. This type of argument should only be used at times when there is a clear existential danger to Klal Yisroel as there was at the time of the founding of the Bais Yaakov movement. At that time Torah Judaism was clearly in danger because women who had no formal system for Torah education were being lost to the universities. Women raised in Torah homes were ill prepared for the university environment which would convince many of them to abandon Torah observance as archaic, irrelevant, and untrue.
It was that fact that allowed history to be changed. It was the same Eis Laasos that allowed the redaction of the Oral Law back in Mishnaic times. But now there is no such existential danger. It is only a small group of people who are driving this agenda who are themselves, perhaps unwittingly, being driven by radical feminism. And that is not enough for radical change.
KOE, which is the UTJ shul (defacto, if not dejure) ..has a Mechitza, but hardly one any traditionally Orthodox Jew would feel comfortable with. If I am not mistaken the Mechitza goes right down the middle and crosses the Bimah so that woman can get Aliyos. I am not sure of the Halachic permissibility of that but I’m sure if one tries hard enough one can find sources allowing some sort of scenario where that is permitted... perhaps without a Bracha... or not during actual Kriyas Hatorah... I don’t know. But the idea is that they stay Halachic and it is why they even bother with any Mechitza at all. And KOE just hired a female “rabbinic” figure to lead their Kehhila: From the article in the New York Times:
“Ms. Najman (pronounced NIGH-man), 38, a wife, a mother of three and an expert in Jewish bioethics, will become the spiritual leader of Kehilat Orach Eliezer, a small Upper West Side congregation. She will not be called rabbi; instead, she has been given the title of rosh kehillah, or head of congregation.”
The fact that they do not call her rabbi is an attempt to stay Halachic. (Although many would say it is a failed attempt.)
Compare that to YCT founder, Rabbi Avi Weiss’s Shul, the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (HIR). He instituted a rabbinic intern program that trains women to function as defacto rabbis, only without the title. They do not technically violate any Halachic dictates and do only what women are allowed to do in a Shul, but they stretch that to the limit. Here, too, it is an attempt to stay within the parameters of Halacha. What’s the real difference between KOE and HIR? I see none.
In both cases the motivation seems clear. The most glaring commonality between the two groups is their concession to the radical feminist agenda. And I emphasize radical because I, too, am a feminist. I believe that in the area of the workplace and in matters of treating the sexes fairly and equally, there should be no difference in our approach to men or women.
But I part company with those who take feminism to an extreme and impose its doctrines in areas of Halacha. Although I agree that one can find legitimate loopholes in Halacha to accommodate feminism, there are lines that should not be crossed, especially if the primary motivation is feminist. Tradition matters. Minhag can be very important, and changing Minhag to accommodate an anti-Torah agenda (which at its core is one of the goals of radical feminism) is wrong.
This is why I am against Women’s Teffilah groups, for example. Though there is a Halachic way for them to exist the motivation is so obviously feminist that it overrides anything positive that may result. Any Kavanah in Avodas HaLev (Davening) that may result is secondary to the fact that a foreign and anti Torah ideology is behind it and has imbedded itself into the Torah world.
And it is foreign to Torah. Because radical feminism believes that equality of the sexes overrides any other ideal, religious or otherwise. Radical feminism wants the world to be blind to the sexes. There are no “roles for men and roles for women. They are interchangeable. Even the physical differences of the sexes are minimized by them. And psychological differences are completely denied. Even those who are sympathetic to their cause pay a heavy price if they even suggest the possibility that there is are psychological differences. Ask ex-Harvard president, Lawrence Summers. He did not walk in lock-step with them and ...he's gone! Female rabbis... absolutely... Halacha... secondary and always trumped by the radical femisit ideology.
We cannot allow this type mentality to creep into the Torah world. We cannot allow it to enter the holy parameters of a Torah nation, even if it does so through the side door of a Halachic loophole.
But UTJ and YCT/Edah don’t mind doing that at all, no matter how radical it is to traditional practice. It does not bother them that the motivation of those who push for such reforms are motivated by the tenets of the radical feminist agenda, even if they do not fully realize it and feel sincere in there motivations.
I think this is one reason that UTJ and YCT/Edah has not yet been... nor will they be successful. One cannot always say “Where there is a rabbinic will, there is a Halachic way” which is kind of an Eis Laasos argument for the times. We are not in such a time now. This type of argument should only be used at times when there is a clear existential danger to Klal Yisroel as there was at the time of the founding of the Bais Yaakov movement. At that time Torah Judaism was clearly in danger because women who had no formal system for Torah education were being lost to the universities. Women raised in Torah homes were ill prepared for the university environment which would convince many of them to abandon Torah observance as archaic, irrelevant, and untrue.
It was that fact that allowed history to be changed. It was the same Eis Laasos that allowed the redaction of the Oral Law back in Mishnaic times. But now there is no such existential danger. It is only a small group of people who are driving this agenda who are themselves, perhaps unwittingly, being driven by radical feminism. And that is not enough for radical change.
Update on Reuven’s Condtion
A bone scan was done yesterday and it was found that to be clean except for the original lesion. The cancer seems to be localized. Also, a bone marrow biopsy was done and it was found to be negative. No malignancy was found there. His bone marrow is healthy.
Upon initial examination in the hospital a small lesion was found on Reuven’s lung. We were told not to worry about that as it was fairly common. We aren’t exactly sure what that means but we are waiting for the results of a biopsy to be performed on it later today. I will report on that as soon as I have the results, either later today or tomorrow.
The news seems basically good. It is a relief to know that the malignancy is localized. We still do not know exactly what type of cancer it is. Hopefully we will by tomorrow. And at that time the course of treatment will be determined as well.
Thank you again to all who have Reuven ben Tova Chaya in your hearts and in your prayers. It means so much to my family.
Upon initial examination in the hospital a small lesion was found on Reuven’s lung. We were told not to worry about that as it was fairly common. We aren’t exactly sure what that means but we are waiting for the results of a biopsy to be performed on it later today. I will report on that as soon as I have the results, either later today or tomorrow.
The news seems basically good. It is a relief to know that the malignancy is localized. We still do not know exactly what type of cancer it is. Hopefully we will by tomorrow. And at that time the course of treatment will be determined as well.
Thank you again to all who have Reuven ben Tova Chaya in your hearts and in your prayers. It means so much to my family.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
A New Approach to Non-Orthodox Movements
Once again Rabbi Gil Student’s post in Hirhurim has become the springboard for one of my own. He shows there that former JTS professor Saul Lieberman was not only a Maamin, but a wise man whose approach to matters involving Emunah and Klal Yisroel were no different than are those of Torah Judaism’s own rabbinic leaders.
Gil provides us with a letter written by Professor Lieberman with respect to Dr. Louis Jacob's heretical views. This letter actually shows both the character of the man as well as his level of Emunah. I think it is clear that Rabbi Saul Lieberman in no way subscribes to the Conservative Movement’s acceptance of Bible criticism.
However, he did teach Torah at JTS. And JTS is clearly, by Professor Saul Lieberman's own definition a heretical institution. And he was in fact criticized by Orthodox rabbinic leadership for doing so. I'm not exactly sure to what extent that criticism went. But if I am not mistaken his "Tosefta K'Pshutah" was put in Cherem.
I wonder how Charedi rabbinic leadership of the type that belongs to the Agudah Moetzes views Prof. Lieberman. Do they treat him as an individual who perhaps mistakenly took a position at JTS? Or have they written him outside the pale of Torah Judaism? The latter would be consistent with their position of not participating with the Conservative Movement in any way because by doing so they give it tacit recognition. And certainly taking a teaching position with them for 40 years does that.
It should be noted that not everyone in the Charedi world refused to recognize Talmidei Chachamim that worked in JTS. Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva Rav Elya Meir Bloch published a Sefer in the 1940s. In the preface he thanked “HaGaon Rav Levi Ginsberg” for his help in getting it published. Rav Levi Ginsburg is more famously known by his English name Rabbi Louis Ginsberg, who had learned in Telshe Lithuania and was considered an Illuy (Talmudic genius). He was also one of the founding fathers of the Conservative movement and had long been there by the time Rav Elya Meir Bloch had asked him for his help.
Rabbi Ginsberg was a professor of Talmud in JTS from its earliest years and fought to define Conservative Judaism as a Halachic movement. He was in fact opposed by other founding fathers of the movement not the least of which was Mordechai Kaplan whose views on the nature of God were somewhat pantheistic. Even JTS did not accept that. But they tolerated his teaching there for many long years. He and Professor Ginsberg were ideological opponents. But in any case Rav Elya Meir Bloch had no compunction about giving credit to Dr. Ginsburg, referring to him as HaGaon..
This raises the question of whether we go too far today in isolating figures who are themselves Shomer Torah uMitzvos, like Professor Lieberman, because they have accepted positions in schools that are identified as heretical. On the one hand I understand this position. On the other hand it seems unfair to judge people when they are not in their shoes.
Perhaps we should be more like Rav Elya Meir Bloch. Tolerance and understanding combined with a clear stance apostate movements should be the new order of the day. Perhaps we can then get a lot more accomplished in trying to get our message of Emes across to the millions of Tinokos SheNishbah.
Along these lines, perhaps it is time to re-visit the issue of Lakewood Rabbi Yosef Reinman’s book written with Reform Rabbi Amiel Hirsch.
Rabbi Reinman made a very contrite apology in the “Jewish Observer” for writing the book and touring with Reform Rabbi Amiel Hirsch. But in that apology he noted that he felt that he was really connecting with secular Jews in ways heretofore impossible and regretted that he would no longer be able to do that. He was really reaching out to them while loudly and clearly distancing himself from the theology of Rabbi Hirsch. Maybe he had the right idea the whole time.
Wouldn’t this be a propitious time for changing course with respect to dealing with members of non Torah Movements? When we are losing multitudes of Jews to assimilation and intermarriage? If one man and one book can have the kind of impact Rabbi Reinman had, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a massive push in that direction would be of major consequence? The reasons for the strident separations of the past have long gone. Torah Judaism has long ago established itself as rejecting of other movements. Our identities are clear and unambiguous. As long as we continue to reinforce that position publicly, I see no reason to more proactive in reaching out to our brethren in every way possible and not overly cut ourselves off from them. The price is just too high to continue the way we are now.
Gil provides us with a letter written by Professor Lieberman with respect to Dr. Louis Jacob's heretical views. This letter actually shows both the character of the man as well as his level of Emunah. I think it is clear that Rabbi Saul Lieberman in no way subscribes to the Conservative Movement’s acceptance of Bible criticism.
However, he did teach Torah at JTS. And JTS is clearly, by Professor Saul Lieberman's own definition a heretical institution. And he was in fact criticized by Orthodox rabbinic leadership for doing so. I'm not exactly sure to what extent that criticism went. But if I am not mistaken his "Tosefta K'Pshutah" was put in Cherem.
I wonder how Charedi rabbinic leadership of the type that belongs to the Agudah Moetzes views Prof. Lieberman. Do they treat him as an individual who perhaps mistakenly took a position at JTS? Or have they written him outside the pale of Torah Judaism? The latter would be consistent with their position of not participating with the Conservative Movement in any way because by doing so they give it tacit recognition. And certainly taking a teaching position with them for 40 years does that.
It should be noted that not everyone in the Charedi world refused to recognize Talmidei Chachamim that worked in JTS. Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva Rav Elya Meir Bloch published a Sefer in the 1940s. In the preface he thanked “HaGaon Rav Levi Ginsberg” for his help in getting it published. Rav Levi Ginsburg is more famously known by his English name Rabbi Louis Ginsberg, who had learned in Telshe Lithuania and was considered an Illuy (Talmudic genius). He was also one of the founding fathers of the Conservative movement and had long been there by the time Rav Elya Meir Bloch had asked him for his help.
Rabbi Ginsberg was a professor of Talmud in JTS from its earliest years and fought to define Conservative Judaism as a Halachic movement. He was in fact opposed by other founding fathers of the movement not the least of which was Mordechai Kaplan whose views on the nature of God were somewhat pantheistic. Even JTS did not accept that. But they tolerated his teaching there for many long years. He and Professor Ginsberg were ideological opponents. But in any case Rav Elya Meir Bloch had no compunction about giving credit to Dr. Ginsburg, referring to him as HaGaon..
This raises the question of whether we go too far today in isolating figures who are themselves Shomer Torah uMitzvos, like Professor Lieberman, because they have accepted positions in schools that are identified as heretical. On the one hand I understand this position. On the other hand it seems unfair to judge people when they are not in their shoes.
Perhaps we should be more like Rav Elya Meir Bloch. Tolerance and understanding combined with a clear stance apostate movements should be the new order of the day. Perhaps we can then get a lot more accomplished in trying to get our message of Emes across to the millions of Tinokos SheNishbah.
Along these lines, perhaps it is time to re-visit the issue of Lakewood Rabbi Yosef Reinman’s book written with Reform Rabbi Amiel Hirsch.
Rabbi Reinman made a very contrite apology in the “Jewish Observer” for writing the book and touring with Reform Rabbi Amiel Hirsch. But in that apology he noted that he felt that he was really connecting with secular Jews in ways heretofore impossible and regretted that he would no longer be able to do that. He was really reaching out to them while loudly and clearly distancing himself from the theology of Rabbi Hirsch. Maybe he had the right idea the whole time.
Wouldn’t this be a propitious time for changing course with respect to dealing with members of non Torah Movements? When we are losing multitudes of Jews to assimilation and intermarriage? If one man and one book can have the kind of impact Rabbi Reinman had, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a massive push in that direction would be of major consequence? The reasons for the strident separations of the past have long gone. Torah Judaism has long ago established itself as rejecting of other movements. Our identities are clear and unambiguous. As long as we continue to reinforce that position publicly, I see no reason to more proactive in reaching out to our brethren in every way possible and not overly cut ourselves off from them. The price is just too high to continue the way we are now.
Thank You
I have received many responses and good wishes both here and privately about my grandson Reuven’s illness. I want to publicly express my appreciation to the many, many of you who are keeping Ruvein in your prayers. I ask that as many of you as possible continue to do so. Prayer helps.
I would also like to thank the many who have suggested various practical options to follow, such as recommending Chai Lifeline and various specialists and clinics. I will forward all those suggestions to my daughter.
Reuven is a good boy and is taking his situation well. At age three he does not quite understand the implications of his disease. However, he is still a bit confused about suddenly being in a hospital with an IV in his arm and subjected to various tests. But having his mother and father constantly by his side makes him feel safe. And that’s somewhat comforting to me.
As the situation progresses, I will try and keep everyone abreast of developments. And I will periodically post in that regard. As of right now, his biopsy has shown that he has one of two types of cancer. When we find out exactly which one it is I will post it here. Today he is getting a bone scan to see if there are any other lesions. By Wednesday, or at the latest Thursday, we should know what he has and what his treatment plan will likely be.
My feelings of sadness and fear have given way to hopefulness and resolve to do what’s necessary to get him healthy. My wife and I are ready to do whatever is we can to help. The Torah community in St Louis has gone beyond all expectations in surrounding my daughter with love and support. So many people there have volunteered to help and are doing so. I cannot express enough appreciation to them for their unbelievable kindness. May God bless them. The hospital staff in St Louis has been just as caring, and both oncologists and orthopedists have been giving my daughter as much time as she needs to explain things and and comfort her. May God bless them, too.
In the meantime I will continue blogging on issues of the day that I feel strongly about and hope to post one later. While it seemed difficult for me to do that yesterday, I have been strengthened by family and friends as well as all those of you who wished my grandson well here and are keeping him in your prayers. God bless all of you.
I would also like to thank the many who have suggested various practical options to follow, such as recommending Chai Lifeline and various specialists and clinics. I will forward all those suggestions to my daughter.
Reuven is a good boy and is taking his situation well. At age three he does not quite understand the implications of his disease. However, he is still a bit confused about suddenly being in a hospital with an IV in his arm and subjected to various tests. But having his mother and father constantly by his side makes him feel safe. And that’s somewhat comforting to me.
As the situation progresses, I will try and keep everyone abreast of developments. And I will periodically post in that regard. As of right now, his biopsy has shown that he has one of two types of cancer. When we find out exactly which one it is I will post it here. Today he is getting a bone scan to see if there are any other lesions. By Wednesday, or at the latest Thursday, we should know what he has and what his treatment plan will likely be.
My feelings of sadness and fear have given way to hopefulness and resolve to do what’s necessary to get him healthy. My wife and I are ready to do whatever is we can to help. The Torah community in St Louis has gone beyond all expectations in surrounding my daughter with love and support. So many people there have volunteered to help and are doing so. I cannot express enough appreciation to them for their unbelievable kindness. May God bless them. The hospital staff in St Louis has been just as caring, and both oncologists and orthopedists have been giving my daughter as much time as she needs to explain things and and comfort her. May God bless them, too.
In the meantime I will continue blogging on issues of the day that I feel strongly about and hope to post one later. While it seemed difficult for me to do that yesterday, I have been strengthened by family and friends as well as all those of you who wished my grandson well here and are keeping him in your prayers. God bless all of you.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Reuven
I wasn’t going to post about this as it involves something in my life which is quite personal. But at my daughter’s request. I am doing so now.
Last week my daughter, son in law, and their 3 sons who currently live in St. Louis decided to spend their summer vacation in Chicago. Last Thursday after a noticing some discomfort in her middle son’s arm, my daughter decided to take him to a pediatrician to check it out. After the appointment an afternoon of fun was planned for the family and then they looked forward to concluding their vacation with two very large family Shabbos meals, one with our extended family; the other with my son in law’s extended family.
As we waited for my daughter to come back, I received a call, from my daughter crying hysterically. She told me an X-ray was taken and they suspect a tumor. They believed my grandson was afflicted with bone cancer. Upon receiving this call, my knees buckled and I could barely stand up. I could not believe my ears. What was supposed to be a nice ending to a pleasant vacation turned into a horrible moment. Everything in my world changed at that moment. I could barely retain my composure. I am not the kind of father that can be a rock under trying and emotional moments. I react. No one expected this. It happened so suddenly. And it shocked us all! The pediatrician suggested that they immediately return to St Louis and deal with the situation there.
Within an hour or so, they were all packed. Moments later they left to return back to their home in St Louis.
My grandson was checked into a children’s hospital and had an MRI. It was determined that the probability of bone cancer is at about ninety percent. We are all very worried. I have not stopped thinking about it. The biopsy is about to take place (within the hour). And a bone scan is scheduled after that to see if it spread. Of course there is still a ten percent chance that it is nothing more than an infection. And that is what we are all hoping for. But we are also very realistic about our expectations.
I would ask that anyone who can to please Daven for a Refuah Shelaima for my grandson, Reuven Ben Tova Chaya.
Last week my daughter, son in law, and their 3 sons who currently live in St. Louis decided to spend their summer vacation in Chicago. Last Thursday after a noticing some discomfort in her middle son’s arm, my daughter decided to take him to a pediatrician to check it out. After the appointment an afternoon of fun was planned for the family and then they looked forward to concluding their vacation with two very large family Shabbos meals, one with our extended family; the other with my son in law’s extended family.
As we waited for my daughter to come back, I received a call, from my daughter crying hysterically. She told me an X-ray was taken and they suspect a tumor. They believed my grandson was afflicted with bone cancer. Upon receiving this call, my knees buckled and I could barely stand up. I could not believe my ears. What was supposed to be a nice ending to a pleasant vacation turned into a horrible moment. Everything in my world changed at that moment. I could barely retain my composure. I am not the kind of father that can be a rock under trying and emotional moments. I react. No one expected this. It happened so suddenly. And it shocked us all! The pediatrician suggested that they immediately return to St Louis and deal with the situation there.
Within an hour or so, they were all packed. Moments later they left to return back to their home in St Louis.
My grandson was checked into a children’s hospital and had an MRI. It was determined that the probability of bone cancer is at about ninety percent. We are all very worried. I have not stopped thinking about it. The biopsy is about to take place (within the hour). And a bone scan is scheduled after that to see if it spread. Of course there is still a ten percent chance that it is nothing more than an infection. And that is what we are all hoping for. But we are also very realistic about our expectations.
I would ask that anyone who can to please Daven for a Refuah Shelaima for my grandson, Reuven Ben Tova Chaya.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
The Slifkin Affair: A Current Analysis
This week’s Jewish Press had a front page article by Rabbi Gil Student. I encourage everyone to read it. Even though I have been aware of the situation from the very beginning I was still unaware of some of the points raised by Rabbi Student such as the following excerpted from the article:
“But what surprised me most was the support from the yeshivishe world. I was expecting very little but received, and continue to receive, many letters, e-mails, phone calls, and even random stops on the street in Brooklyn from people who feel very passionately about this subject. Many rabbis and learned laymen seem to have tremendous sympathy for Rabbi Slifkin, both on a personal level for his public humiliation and on an intellectual level for his championing their views.”
I had no idea that the Yeshivishe world was so supportive. Until now I thought that with very few but notable exceptions, the Yeshiva world was firmly on the side of the ban once it was made, even if here-to-fore they were not. This was how Ner Israel Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Aaron Feldman, viewed it. And this is how prominent Charedi Kiruv worker, Rabbi Dovid Orlovsky took it.
In a mea culpa essay circulated around the internet he hammered Rabbi Slifkin and suggested that if he (Rabbi Orlovsky) were the one whose books were banned he would be on his hands and knees begging for Mechila for espousing heretical views. (…which of course are not heretical at all except to those who banned the books.)
Additionally, there were the later assertions by certain rabbinic figures who were at first reticent to add their names to the ban. They too now supported the ban and considered Rabbi Slifkin to be impudent! In one instance of retraction of initial support, the ban was joined by a renowned rabbinic figure recanting his original support... after reading an unrelated article written by Rabbi Slifkin and interpreted as heretical. So with the tide seeming to shift in the direction of the ban I was gratified to learn from Rabbi Student that it was not universal.
I have said many times in the past both on this blog and elsewhere that the issue is not Rabbi Slifkin himself. He has unfortunately become the target of a group of people with a mindset which is fundamentalist to the core. And he has unfairly become their symbol for heresy and impudence.
Some people have tried to explain the actions of this group as a means to protect their own students, not well versed in the nuances of those of us who have studied science at a university level, from becoming heretics through the reading of his books. The views about creation and science contained there-in were after all views they were not familiar with and had always been thought of as heresy.
But while that may be part of the banners motives, I am convinced that it is only of secondary importance to them. This is a battle for the soul of the Torah world. It is a battle to exclusively define core Torah belief as those of their own, to the exclusion of all others. Rabbi Slifkin’s views (and others like them) are considerede heresy and they are determined to stop these views form being spread. And banning Rabbi Slifkin’s books on the subject is they way they are going about it. And this is critical to understanding what all the furor is about.
Most people who read this blog know where my own sympathies lie. They are clearly on the side of honest and open debate. And where there is Halachic and Hashkafic precedent one should freely be able to choose the position with which one is most comfortable. And those of us who are so disappointed with the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books were disappointed because the concept of plurality of thought, the idea of Elu V’Elu which has always been the hallmark of Judaism going back to the days of the Mishna is been denied to us by those who view fundamentalism as the only legitimate approach.
Since the ban many of those who work in Kiruv in the Yeshivishe world have all been scrambling to try and figure out what to do… how to approach intelligent and secularly educated Jews who have a natural affinity see the world through the prism written about by Rabbi Slifkin… and not look foolish and ignorant. I spoke to many Charedi leaders and people in Kiruv in Chicago after the ban and they were all as troubled by the ban as I was. Until the ban, the Lakewood Roshei Kollel in Chicago (The CCK) invited people who held views similar to those of Rabbi Slifkin to speak to outreach groups as well as to the actual Avreivhim in the Kollel. These included people like Dr. Gerald Schroeder, and Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky. And the Lakewood Kollel in Chicago is not alone. One commentor I an earlier thread mentioned the following anecdote about the Lakewood Rosh Kollel Kollel in Detroit, Rabbi Shmuel Irons:
“Shmuel Irons gave a Simchat Torah night lecture (mostly off the cuff, I think) about Egyptology, Emmanuel Velikovsky and the Age of the Universe (I think that's what the title was). Rabbi Irons quoted many of the same sources as R. Slifkin. Not long ago I asked him, "Rabbi Slifkin's books get put in cherem while you said virtually the same thing, from the same sources, from the amud on Simchas Torah..." His response: "Some people have mazal." And he then had a hearty laugh.”
What is to be taken from his response? That there is no real Issur in holding the views contained in Rabbi Slifkin’s books, and that Rabbi Slifkin was singled out for banning because of his relative youth and, therefore, vulnerability. Banning his books had no real repercussions on anyone or any specific institutions. Except for Rabbi Slfkin and his family, who have really suffered unfairly from this harsh attack. To have banned the writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Gerald Schroeder, and the many rabbinic speakers of the type who spoke in Lakewood Kollelim that have espoused virtually the same thing Rabbi Slifkin does would have had far reaching repercussions that could not have stood. That is why there has been no banning of books containing views virtually identical to those of Rabbi Slifkin’s books. By attacking the younger Slifkin, it was thought that they could dispense with this ideolology without any real controversy in the wider Charedi community. But they were wrong.
The fallout is now apparent. The controversy is huge. People who are considered Gedloim have come out and joined the ban, where they had never considered doing so before. Ideas are now called heretical that have had clear precedent in the literature of some of the greatest Rishonim and Achronim in history. And some Rabbanim on the other side of the controversy have gone out on a limb to support Rabbi Slifkin. How these Rabbanim are viewed by those who have joined in the ban remains to be seen.
Where will all this end? Only God knows. But that is the “state of the union”.
“But what surprised me most was the support from the yeshivishe world. I was expecting very little but received, and continue to receive, many letters, e-mails, phone calls, and even random stops on the street in Brooklyn from people who feel very passionately about this subject. Many rabbis and learned laymen seem to have tremendous sympathy for Rabbi Slifkin, both on a personal level for his public humiliation and on an intellectual level for his championing their views.”
I had no idea that the Yeshivishe world was so supportive. Until now I thought that with very few but notable exceptions, the Yeshiva world was firmly on the side of the ban once it was made, even if here-to-fore they were not. This was how Ner Israel Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Aaron Feldman, viewed it. And this is how prominent Charedi Kiruv worker, Rabbi Dovid Orlovsky took it.
In a mea culpa essay circulated around the internet he hammered Rabbi Slifkin and suggested that if he (Rabbi Orlovsky) were the one whose books were banned he would be on his hands and knees begging for Mechila for espousing heretical views. (…which of course are not heretical at all except to those who banned the books.)
Additionally, there were the later assertions by certain rabbinic figures who were at first reticent to add their names to the ban. They too now supported the ban and considered Rabbi Slifkin to be impudent! In one instance of retraction of initial support, the ban was joined by a renowned rabbinic figure recanting his original support... after reading an unrelated article written by Rabbi Slifkin and interpreted as heretical. So with the tide seeming to shift in the direction of the ban I was gratified to learn from Rabbi Student that it was not universal.
I have said many times in the past both on this blog and elsewhere that the issue is not Rabbi Slifkin himself. He has unfortunately become the target of a group of people with a mindset which is fundamentalist to the core. And he has unfairly become their symbol for heresy and impudence.
Some people have tried to explain the actions of this group as a means to protect their own students, not well versed in the nuances of those of us who have studied science at a university level, from becoming heretics through the reading of his books. The views about creation and science contained there-in were after all views they were not familiar with and had always been thought of as heresy.
But while that may be part of the banners motives, I am convinced that it is only of secondary importance to them. This is a battle for the soul of the Torah world. It is a battle to exclusively define core Torah belief as those of their own, to the exclusion of all others. Rabbi Slifkin’s views (and others like them) are considerede heresy and they are determined to stop these views form being spread. And banning Rabbi Slifkin’s books on the subject is they way they are going about it. And this is critical to understanding what all the furor is about.
Most people who read this blog know where my own sympathies lie. They are clearly on the side of honest and open debate. And where there is Halachic and Hashkafic precedent one should freely be able to choose the position with which one is most comfortable. And those of us who are so disappointed with the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books were disappointed because the concept of plurality of thought, the idea of Elu V’Elu which has always been the hallmark of Judaism going back to the days of the Mishna is been denied to us by those who view fundamentalism as the only legitimate approach.
Since the ban many of those who work in Kiruv in the Yeshivishe world have all been scrambling to try and figure out what to do… how to approach intelligent and secularly educated Jews who have a natural affinity see the world through the prism written about by Rabbi Slifkin… and not look foolish and ignorant. I spoke to many Charedi leaders and people in Kiruv in Chicago after the ban and they were all as troubled by the ban as I was. Until the ban, the Lakewood Roshei Kollel in Chicago (The CCK) invited people who held views similar to those of Rabbi Slifkin to speak to outreach groups as well as to the actual Avreivhim in the Kollel. These included people like Dr. Gerald Schroeder, and Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky. And the Lakewood Kollel in Chicago is not alone. One commentor I an earlier thread mentioned the following anecdote about the Lakewood Rosh Kollel Kollel in Detroit, Rabbi Shmuel Irons:
“Shmuel Irons gave a Simchat Torah night lecture (mostly off the cuff, I think) about Egyptology, Emmanuel Velikovsky and the Age of the Universe (I think that's what the title was). Rabbi Irons quoted many of the same sources as R. Slifkin. Not long ago I asked him, "Rabbi Slifkin's books get put in cherem while you said virtually the same thing, from the same sources, from the amud on Simchas Torah..." His response: "Some people have mazal." And he then had a hearty laugh.”
What is to be taken from his response? That there is no real Issur in holding the views contained in Rabbi Slifkin’s books, and that Rabbi Slifkin was singled out for banning because of his relative youth and, therefore, vulnerability. Banning his books had no real repercussions on anyone or any specific institutions. Except for Rabbi Slfkin and his family, who have really suffered unfairly from this harsh attack. To have banned the writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Gerald Schroeder, and the many rabbinic speakers of the type who spoke in Lakewood Kollelim that have espoused virtually the same thing Rabbi Slifkin does would have had far reaching repercussions that could not have stood. That is why there has been no banning of books containing views virtually identical to those of Rabbi Slifkin’s books. By attacking the younger Slifkin, it was thought that they could dispense with this ideolology without any real controversy in the wider Charedi community. But they were wrong.
The fallout is now apparent. The controversy is huge. People who are considered Gedloim have come out and joined the ban, where they had never considered doing so before. Ideas are now called heretical that have had clear precedent in the literature of some of the greatest Rishonim and Achronim in history. And some Rabbanim on the other side of the controversy have gone out on a limb to support Rabbi Slifkin. How these Rabbanim are viewed by those who have joined in the ban remains to be seen.
Where will all this end? Only God knows. But that is the “state of the union”.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Quiet Ann
A poster by the name of quietann who occasionally posts on this blog is one of my favorite commenters. I value her viewpoint because I believe that she is one of the more intellectually honest and unbiased commenters as well as one of the most perceptive. in the world of Orthodox Bloggers. She brings to this blog and to any others in which she participates a fair and balanced view from outside the Orthodox community while still respecting it.
She has said in the past that she is only recently in life started to research her roots and even though she is not observant she seems to appreciate where we of the Torah world are coming from. For that I wish to salute her and hope that she continues to give her valuable perspective on issues that I and anyone else present.
Her latest contribution here was to my last post on Frumkeit in which she speaks specifically to the issue of how a woman feels when a euphemism is substituted for her name. It is an honest view uncluttered by a pre-exiting religious perspective and speaks volumes to me about that issue. So once again, quietann, I salute you and value your perspective more than you know. Her comment is very informing as to how customs of the Torah world are perceived by those who are not quite in it, yet respect it. Here is her comment. It is a lesson for all of us:
“I also find it really sad that a culture exists where the only "polite" way to think of a woman is as "So and so's wife." We women have NAMES. I am afraid I just don't understand how referring to a woman by her NAME is a violation of tzunius…”
Neither do I. And neither did one of the greattest figures of the 19th and20th century, Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik. It simply isn’t a stricture at all and it is instead pure nonsense. Don’t let a few misinformed people misguide you about the truth of Judaism. These are not stringencies, but a mad chase toward non-existent strictures for the sole purpose of showing off how religious one is. And it is not the Torah way.
She has said in the past that she is only recently in life started to research her roots and even though she is not observant she seems to appreciate where we of the Torah world are coming from. For that I wish to salute her and hope that she continues to give her valuable perspective on issues that I and anyone else present.
Her latest contribution here was to my last post on Frumkeit in which she speaks specifically to the issue of how a woman feels when a euphemism is substituted for her name. It is an honest view uncluttered by a pre-exiting religious perspective and speaks volumes to me about that issue. So once again, quietann, I salute you and value your perspective more than you know. Her comment is very informing as to how customs of the Torah world are perceived by those who are not quite in it, yet respect it. Here is her comment. It is a lesson for all of us:
“I also find it really sad that a culture exists where the only "polite" way to think of a woman is as "So and so's wife." We women have NAMES. I am afraid I just don't understand how referring to a woman by her NAME is a violation of tzunius…”
Neither do I. And neither did one of the greattest figures of the 19th and20th century, Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik. It simply isn’t a stricture at all and it is instead pure nonsense. Don’t let a few misinformed people misguide you about the truth of Judaism. These are not stringencies, but a mad chase toward non-existent strictures for the sole purpose of showing off how religious one is. And it is not the Torah way.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Frumkeit
There has been a discussion on Areivim about the propriety of signing an invitation by writing the husband’s name and referring to the wife as “Verayaso, as in: Mr. Zev Friedman V'Rayaso. The debate centers on whether signing an invitation this way is a higher form of Tznius and therefore a more preferable way of doing it than mentioning one’s wife by name.
One poster said that it used to bother him but then realized that the secular world also uses a form of this signage, as in: Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
But the truth is it’s not the same thing. Zev Friedman V'Rayaso is more like the signing the invitation: Mr. John Doe and his wife" than it is Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. In my view it is condescending to one’s wife doing it that way. This is yet another instance of chasing an unnecessary Chumra for absolutely no good reason.
If there is a community where a woman prefers being referred to as
"and his wife", we ought to respect that and leave them alone. I believe that is standard practice amongst Chasidim.
But those of us who are not part of that kind of community, should not be "copycating" it. It is a no more sensitive to Tznius to say "and his wife" than it is to use the wife’s first name. Insisting on the practice of using the word VeRayaso in place of the wife’s name is another example of the Charedization of Judaism.
The way in which one utilizes language is based both on the culture one comes from and the culture wherein one lives. In the US and in the pre-WWII Litvishe communities it is ...and was... quite acceptable to refer to your wife by her first name. No less a Gadol than Rav Chaim Soloveichik signed the invitation to his son’s wedding that way. It is signed: Chaim HaLevi (and) Lipsha Soloveitchik. Do we really need to be Frummer than R. Chaim? It is just as Tznius to mention one’s wife by name as it is to say "and his wife".
One can conclude, therefore, that today's Litvishe/Yeshivishe
Rabbanim and/or Baalei Battim who do that are only doing it to look as "Frum" as possible. This is symptomatic of the chronic problem so pervasive these days of putting externals (such as black hats) at the forefront of Judaism. Adopting the practice of using the term VeRayoso to refer to your wife instead of using her name is demeaning and it is wearing your Frumkeit on your sleeve. Rav Shlomo Wolbe condemned such behavior. Frumkeit is not Yiddishkeit. It is Yuhara.
One poster said that it used to bother him but then realized that the secular world also uses a form of this signage, as in: Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
But the truth is it’s not the same thing. Zev Friedman V'Rayaso is more like the signing the invitation: Mr. John Doe and his wife" than it is Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. In my view it is condescending to one’s wife doing it that way. This is yet another instance of chasing an unnecessary Chumra for absolutely no good reason.
If there is a community where a woman prefers being referred to as
"and his wife", we ought to respect that and leave them alone. I believe that is standard practice amongst Chasidim.
But those of us who are not part of that kind of community, should not be "copycating" it. It is a no more sensitive to Tznius to say "and his wife" than it is to use the wife’s first name. Insisting on the practice of using the word VeRayaso in place of the wife’s name is another example of the Charedization of Judaism.
The way in which one utilizes language is based both on the culture one comes from and the culture wherein one lives. In the US and in the pre-WWII Litvishe communities it is ...and was... quite acceptable to refer to your wife by her first name. No less a Gadol than Rav Chaim Soloveichik signed the invitation to his son’s wedding that way. It is signed: Chaim HaLevi (and) Lipsha Soloveitchik. Do we really need to be Frummer than R. Chaim? It is just as Tznius to mention one’s wife by name as it is to say "and his wife".
One can conclude, therefore, that today's Litvishe/Yeshivishe
Rabbanim and/or Baalei Battim who do that are only doing it to look as "Frum" as possible. This is symptomatic of the chronic problem so pervasive these days of putting externals (such as black hats) at the forefront of Judaism. Adopting the practice of using the term VeRayoso to refer to your wife instead of using her name is demeaning and it is wearing your Frumkeit on your sleeve. Rav Shlomo Wolbe condemned such behavior. Frumkeit is not Yiddishkeit. It is Yuhara.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Rabbi Shael Siegel: Non Conformist
I just read a very thoughtful essay by my friend, Rabbi Shael Siegel on his blog, Rabbi Shael Speaks. It is in opposition to my essay on the subject of high school choices for one’s children. I very much appreciate his thoughts and point of view. But before I comment, I want to take the opportunity to tell my readership a bit about my very unusual friend. I hope I don’t embarrass him.
There is a phrase that I use quite a bit and seems almost cliché but I can’t help it. It applies here: My friend Shael is one of the most brilliant people I know. He was in Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik’s Smicha program along with me and he consistently “aced” all of his Bechinos. He was definitely one of the brighter students in a Shiur that incuded the equally brilliant 3 oldest sons of Rabbi Soloveichik, and quite a few other quite brilliant people. Aside from being brilliant, Shael is also one of the most non-conformist people I know. I will never forget how that non-conformism was defended by Rav Ahron when we were in the Smicha program there:
The time was the late sixties. Rabbi Siegel did not dress in the most Yeshivish of ways… to say the least! He had very long hair and a beard. And he used to dress in the anti-establishment look of the late sixties. Some might say his appearance fit right in with the “Chicago Seven” seven radicals who in 1969-70 went on trial accused of conspiring to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Of course Shael was nothing like them… but he looked like them.
That resulted in some parents complaining to the administration which in turn got him suspended from the Yeshiva by the Dean of Students, Dr Joseph Babad, …until he “cleaned up” his “look. When Rav Ahron found out about it, he went to Dr. Babad and told him that not only is Shael one of the top students in his Shiur, but that he is to be immediately reinstated and that Dr. Babad had to personally apologize to him.
That same non-conformism also induced Shael to make Aliyah and join the IDF during the first Lebanon War in ’82. He served as a captain and saw action there where he put his life on the line for the Jewish people. Truly a great human being.(He has since moved back and currently lives in Skokie, Illinois.)
Of course that non-conformism also means that he also does not follow your typical path in life. And that is in part, why I believe Rabbi Siegel has adopted an a-typical path, for an Orthodox Jew and Rabbi, in the education of his children. He is an intellectual, very thoughtful, and does not do anything without giving it thorough thought and analysis.
Although Shael is a good friend, and even though I admire and respect his views and his mind, he and I do not agree Hashkafically. He is far more liberal in his thinking than I am. I would characterize his views on Judaism to be on the far left of Orthodoxy (and he can correct me if I am wrong).
First let me state that despite his feelings about my essay, there is absolutely no condescension to the values of public school children per se. My post was silent on that issue. My concerns were strictly in the realm of the ability to retain Orthodox Jewish practice and belief. In my view it is unarguable that a public school is in any way conducive to that although it is possible, and does happen. But the odds are not in favor of it. And though Rabbi Seigel says his daughter was properly tutored, my concerns have nothing to do with the level of Torah and Judaic knowledge that can be achieved through tutoring. One could even argue that private tutoring can even achieve superior results. But I would retort that focusing the major part of the day on secular subjects does not in most cases leave sufficient time for the level of knowledge that could be achieved in a religious high school with a good curriculum taught by good teachers.
Another point Rabbi Siegel makes is that putting your children into an environment where-in their values can be tested (Nisyonos) is positive enterprise which builds character. But I would argue that it isn’t always the case. The Nisayon may overcome your child who will succumb to temptation. Is it really better to put your child into an environment where the influences and temptations are so great that a young, teenager would have to have near superhuman powers to resist them? That Rabbi Siegel succeeded with his daughter is no proof that others would. And in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary. Even if a student doesn’t succumb to all of the social ills usually present in today’s public schools, they will almost certainly at least succumb to the pressure to lessen Mitzvah observance. That Rabbi Siegel’s daughter didn’t lessen her own observance is a testament to her and to her parents and cannot be relied upon by every one in most cases.
Rabbi Seigel’s daughter is in that category of exceptions that I spoke of and in her case the concept of Chanoch L’Naar Al Pi Darkos applies. But it is a rare occurance, in my view that a child will emerge obsevant or in any real way knowledgable about their Judaism if they spend their teenage years in a public high school.
There is a phrase that I use quite a bit and seems almost cliché but I can’t help it. It applies here: My friend Shael is one of the most brilliant people I know. He was in Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik’s Smicha program along with me and he consistently “aced” all of his Bechinos. He was definitely one of the brighter students in a Shiur that incuded the equally brilliant 3 oldest sons of Rabbi Soloveichik, and quite a few other quite brilliant people. Aside from being brilliant, Shael is also one of the most non-conformist people I know. I will never forget how that non-conformism was defended by Rav Ahron when we were in the Smicha program there:
The time was the late sixties. Rabbi Siegel did not dress in the most Yeshivish of ways… to say the least! He had very long hair and a beard. And he used to dress in the anti-establishment look of the late sixties. Some might say his appearance fit right in with the “Chicago Seven” seven radicals who in 1969-70 went on trial accused of conspiring to incite a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Of course Shael was nothing like them… but he looked like them.
That resulted in some parents complaining to the administration which in turn got him suspended from the Yeshiva by the Dean of Students, Dr Joseph Babad, …until he “cleaned up” his “look. When Rav Ahron found out about it, he went to Dr. Babad and told him that not only is Shael one of the top students in his Shiur, but that he is to be immediately reinstated and that Dr. Babad had to personally apologize to him.
That same non-conformism also induced Shael to make Aliyah and join the IDF during the first Lebanon War in ’82. He served as a captain and saw action there where he put his life on the line for the Jewish people. Truly a great human being.(He has since moved back and currently lives in Skokie, Illinois.)
Of course that non-conformism also means that he also does not follow your typical path in life. And that is in part, why I believe Rabbi Siegel has adopted an a-typical path, for an Orthodox Jew and Rabbi, in the education of his children. He is an intellectual, very thoughtful, and does not do anything without giving it thorough thought and analysis.
Although Shael is a good friend, and even though I admire and respect his views and his mind, he and I do not agree Hashkafically. He is far more liberal in his thinking than I am. I would characterize his views on Judaism to be on the far left of Orthodoxy (and he can correct me if I am wrong).
First let me state that despite his feelings about my essay, there is absolutely no condescension to the values of public school children per se. My post was silent on that issue. My concerns were strictly in the realm of the ability to retain Orthodox Jewish practice and belief. In my view it is unarguable that a public school is in any way conducive to that although it is possible, and does happen. But the odds are not in favor of it. And though Rabbi Seigel says his daughter was properly tutored, my concerns have nothing to do with the level of Torah and Judaic knowledge that can be achieved through tutoring. One could even argue that private tutoring can even achieve superior results. But I would retort that focusing the major part of the day on secular subjects does not in most cases leave sufficient time for the level of knowledge that could be achieved in a religious high school with a good curriculum taught by good teachers.
Another point Rabbi Siegel makes is that putting your children into an environment where-in their values can be tested (Nisyonos) is positive enterprise which builds character. But I would argue that it isn’t always the case. The Nisayon may overcome your child who will succumb to temptation. Is it really better to put your child into an environment where the influences and temptations are so great that a young, teenager would have to have near superhuman powers to resist them? That Rabbi Siegel succeeded with his daughter is no proof that others would. And in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary. Even if a student doesn’t succumb to all of the social ills usually present in today’s public schools, they will almost certainly at least succumb to the pressure to lessen Mitzvah observance. That Rabbi Siegel’s daughter didn’t lessen her own observance is a testament to her and to her parents and cannot be relied upon by every one in most cases.
Rabbi Seigel’s daughter is in that category of exceptions that I spoke of and in her case the concept of Chanoch L’Naar Al Pi Darkos applies. But it is a rare occurance, in my view that a child will emerge obsevant or in any real way knowledgable about their Judaism if they spend their teenage years in a public high school.
The Right Stuff
For those interested in the subject of appreciating the Israeli Defense Forces I have written an article on this subject which expands on an article I wrote here a little while ago. It appears in this week’s Jewish Press in the op-ed section. It can also be found here in their on line edition.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Co-ed High Schools and the Mingling of the Sexes
One thing which I have always been against in principle is the concept of co-ed religious high schools. This does not mean that there can’t be exceptions made in certain circumstances. But for the most part I think they create more problems than they solve.
My reasons are very simple. The teenage years are the ones where interest in the opposite sex really begins. As such, it can be quite a distraction from studies. High school then becomes as much of a social scene as it does place of learning. The attractions that go along with the social scene do not leave the mind once the bell rings …especially if the object of the attraction sits three rows up. It is very difficult to study under these circumstances. The attraction easily becomes a distraction.
Now it is true that the better students can focus on their studies in such an environment but not everyone is capable of focusing on one's studies while resisting the call of socializing with the opposite sex. This is especially true at the age of “raging hormones” and that distracts from one’s education.
There is the counter argument that co-ed schools teaches one the social graces or appropriate interaction between the sexes. And it provides an opportunity for practicing all that is learned in that respect in the home or elsewhere. But I think that benefit pales in comparison to the detriment of the often enormous pressures of the social scene that takes place within the confines of a co-ed school. To me it is a no brainer. In single sex schools the distraction is comletely removed from the environment, leaving it a far more conducive place to learn.
And then there is that other tiny little matter of overcoming the natural sex drive one begins to exprience at that age. If a teenage boy is constantly surrounded by girls all the time he cannot help but think about them. And in some cases it can become obsessive even without their presence at any given moment. Of course the sex drive exists in the students of single sex schools too and can take up much of a teenage boy’s thoughts even he is at the finest of Yeshivos. But having those strong feelings coupled with the constant stimuli of the opposite sex around you, can make overcoming those feelings almost impossible. This can lead to all sorts of problems, from violating Halachos of Tznius, to violating various degrees of Erva... or much, much worse. And “worse” happens more often than one might think. Why expose our high school age children to such Nisyonos? I think it is a bad idea. Period.
Which makes it so perplexing that there is one respected MO rabbi, a brilliant man who I consider to be a role model of behavior... and of rabbonus, that sends his children to a co-ed school. Doesn’t he realize the level of Nisayon he put’s his children under? I just hope he doesn’t regret it. And his example will no doubt encourage other “fence sitting” parents to opt for a co-ed high school, too. I worry for those children. They may not have the parental role model this rabbi’s children have.
This being said, I do not think there should be total separation between the sexes during the high school years. The extreme of complete avoidance is no good either which is the case in the more ultra Orthodox circles. This can easily cause socially retarded behavior. That doesn’t mean it can’t be quickly overcome once an individual starts Shiddach dating. But it is a very awkward and in my view unnecessary way to start.
I would also note that I am not including Chasidim in this analysis. They have their own system that is so out of mainstream America that they are beyond the scope of this essay. I am not judging the value of their practices in this regard. They have their measures of successes and failures. But I don’t think one can apply any parts of this essay to their situation. I speak here only of what I feel would be the ideal for the non Chasidic mainstream of both Charedim and the Modern Orthodox.
Ideally there should be some degree of social interaction in controlled environments such as a Shabbos meal between two families with children of the opposite sex. This induces a feeling of comfort later in life when it becomes necessary, such as when one seriously starts dating.
What about social organizations that are co-ed? I’m not sure. All the arguments pro and con exist there too. NCSY is one such organization. Should religious high schoolers attend NCSY? I don't know. I vacillate on this one because NCSY needs Frum kids as role models for the public high school kids. And in some cases the Frum NCSYers actually get Chizuk in their Yahadus. But the pitfalls of over-exposure to the opposite sex that occurs in co-ed high schools can occur in social organizations too. Just not on a daily basis. So on this issue I remain neutral and to be convinced one way or the other. The one thing I am fairly certain of is that the two extremes of the Charedi and MO communities are not ideal and can be conterproductive or even unhealthy for many young people.
My reasons are very simple. The teenage years are the ones where interest in the opposite sex really begins. As such, it can be quite a distraction from studies. High school then becomes as much of a social scene as it does place of learning. The attractions that go along with the social scene do not leave the mind once the bell rings …especially if the object of the attraction sits three rows up. It is very difficult to study under these circumstances. The attraction easily becomes a distraction.
Now it is true that the better students can focus on their studies in such an environment but not everyone is capable of focusing on one's studies while resisting the call of socializing with the opposite sex. This is especially true at the age of “raging hormones” and that distracts from one’s education.
There is the counter argument that co-ed schools teaches one the social graces or appropriate interaction between the sexes. And it provides an opportunity for practicing all that is learned in that respect in the home or elsewhere. But I think that benefit pales in comparison to the detriment of the often enormous pressures of the social scene that takes place within the confines of a co-ed school. To me it is a no brainer. In single sex schools the distraction is comletely removed from the environment, leaving it a far more conducive place to learn.
And then there is that other tiny little matter of overcoming the natural sex drive one begins to exprience at that age. If a teenage boy is constantly surrounded by girls all the time he cannot help but think about them. And in some cases it can become obsessive even without their presence at any given moment. Of course the sex drive exists in the students of single sex schools too and can take up much of a teenage boy’s thoughts even he is at the finest of Yeshivos. But having those strong feelings coupled with the constant stimuli of the opposite sex around you, can make overcoming those feelings almost impossible. This can lead to all sorts of problems, from violating Halachos of Tznius, to violating various degrees of Erva... or much, much worse. And “worse” happens more often than one might think. Why expose our high school age children to such Nisyonos? I think it is a bad idea. Period.
Which makes it so perplexing that there is one respected MO rabbi, a brilliant man who I consider to be a role model of behavior... and of rabbonus, that sends his children to a co-ed school. Doesn’t he realize the level of Nisayon he put’s his children under? I just hope he doesn’t regret it. And his example will no doubt encourage other “fence sitting” parents to opt for a co-ed high school, too. I worry for those children. They may not have the parental role model this rabbi’s children have.
This being said, I do not think there should be total separation between the sexes during the high school years. The extreme of complete avoidance is no good either which is the case in the more ultra Orthodox circles. This can easily cause socially retarded behavior. That doesn’t mean it can’t be quickly overcome once an individual starts Shiddach dating. But it is a very awkward and in my view unnecessary way to start.
I would also note that I am not including Chasidim in this analysis. They have their own system that is so out of mainstream America that they are beyond the scope of this essay. I am not judging the value of their practices in this regard. They have their measures of successes and failures. But I don’t think one can apply any parts of this essay to their situation. I speak here only of what I feel would be the ideal for the non Chasidic mainstream of both Charedim and the Modern Orthodox.
Ideally there should be some degree of social interaction in controlled environments such as a Shabbos meal between two families with children of the opposite sex. This induces a feeling of comfort later in life when it becomes necessary, such as when one seriously starts dating.
What about social organizations that are co-ed? I’m not sure. All the arguments pro and con exist there too. NCSY is one such organization. Should religious high schoolers attend NCSY? I don't know. I vacillate on this one because NCSY needs Frum kids as role models for the public high school kids. And in some cases the Frum NCSYers actually get Chizuk in their Yahadus. But the pitfalls of over-exposure to the opposite sex that occurs in co-ed high schools can occur in social organizations too. Just not on a daily basis. So on this issue I remain neutral and to be convinced one way or the other. The one thing I am fairly certain of is that the two extremes of the Charedi and MO communities are not ideal and can be conterproductive or even unhealthy for many young people.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Epilogue: The War Against Hezbollah
With the cease fire now in place (albeit not so firmly) there has been much speculation with respect to the handling of the war by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government. As a result, many pundits have predicted his government’s demise.
I’m not so sure. In fairness to the Omlert government time is needed to sort things out. Time is needed to examine and analyze what has, and what has not accomplished. And many variables have yet to be played out.
Yet, the feeling by many Israelis and American pundits, even those very supportive of Israel, is that the mission was not accomplished. …that Hezbollah has …not… only not been destroyed, but has remained relatively unscathed by the entire enterprise. Nasrallah has already claimed victory for Hezbollah by virtue of the fact that it stood up to the mighty Israeli army. And this is precisely how the Islamist world perceives it too.
Well, that may be so in one sense… the PR one. But let us examine what actually has happened. Israel has devastated the country of Lebanon. All of which was precipitated by Hezbollah’s aggressive acts in kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Much of its infrastructure has been destroyed. There have been over 1000 supposedly innocent civilian Lebanese killed. There has been a displacement of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese many of whom have been left homeless. And there has been billions of dollars in damage. If one wants to call such devastation a victory for those who precipitated it… well, I think that stretches the definition of victory a bit far. By most standards this can hardly be called a victory. Especially when the casualties in Israel are only one tenth the amount and the economic damage is relatively small in comparison to Lebanon.
This is not to diminish the pain suffered by all of Klal Yisroel by the loss of life and limb by civilian and soldier alike. The pain is there and it hurts. But when trying to determine who won and who lost, it should certainly be concluded that Lebanon lost… even if Israel did not win.
But the fact still is that in PR terms Hezbollah won by merely surviving. And they survived in a lot better shape than anyone predicted… it seems. And the kidnapped soldiers remain kidnapped. So… many people are asking, “What has Israel gained by all of this”? Hezbollah is as defiant as ever and claiming victory.
Everyone was expecting (or at least hoping for) a quick “6 day war” like victory, including me. But what we all failed to realize was that this war was different in kind than any of the previous wars Israel fought. This time Israel was not fighting a country with identifiable soldiers. Israel was fighting an Islamist ideology with invisible fighters who were one moment Islamist Hezbollah terrorists and the next moment civilians who blended right in with their neighbors… living in heavily populated civilian neighborhoods with their families and friends. It is almost impossible to have any kind of victory under these circumstances… certainly not the type of decisive victory that one nation can have over another.
So before one blames Israel for not wining one should consider the very different nature of this war versus the wars of he past. The United States is currently experiencing the same type of problem in Iraq. They too are fighting an invisible terrorist army.
That being said there is legitimate criticism of the way in which Israel prosecuted the war. In an attempt to minimize Israeli casualties, PM Olmert tried to conduct the entire war from the air. He did not want to send in ground troops as that would have significantly increased casualties. Virtually everyone, including me, feels this was a mistake. Had they gone in on the ground immediately, there could have been a more decisive victory with less Lebanese “civilian” casualties, albeit more Israeli ones.
To be fair this is 20/20 hindsight. No one anticipated the fire-power of Hezbollah. And no one anticipated their ability to resist the Israeli onslaught. By the time Israel decided to send in ground troops, it was very late in the game.
But, even with this criticism, and with Hezbollah claiming victory and world punditry agreeing, I think it is too early to tell what the final result of this war will be. Will we return to the status quo ante? I don’t know but I don’t think so. I certainly hope not. What the final outcome will be I don’t know. My gut feeling is that there will be some material improvement in the security situation for Israel. Prime Minister Olmert cannot be blamed for not having a decisive win. No Israeli leader could have accomplished that, in my view.
As for the larger picture, Islamism has survived this battle and until the ideology itself is somehow destroyed it will always remain a mortal danger to… not only Israel… but the entire world.
I’m not so sure. In fairness to the Omlert government time is needed to sort things out. Time is needed to examine and analyze what has, and what has not accomplished. And many variables have yet to be played out.
Yet, the feeling by many Israelis and American pundits, even those very supportive of Israel, is that the mission was not accomplished. …that Hezbollah has …not… only not been destroyed, but has remained relatively unscathed by the entire enterprise. Nasrallah has already claimed victory for Hezbollah by virtue of the fact that it stood up to the mighty Israeli army. And this is precisely how the Islamist world perceives it too.
Well, that may be so in one sense… the PR one. But let us examine what actually has happened. Israel has devastated the country of Lebanon. All of which was precipitated by Hezbollah’s aggressive acts in kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Much of its infrastructure has been destroyed. There have been over 1000 supposedly innocent civilian Lebanese killed. There has been a displacement of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese many of whom have been left homeless. And there has been billions of dollars in damage. If one wants to call such devastation a victory for those who precipitated it… well, I think that stretches the definition of victory a bit far. By most standards this can hardly be called a victory. Especially when the casualties in Israel are only one tenth the amount and the economic damage is relatively small in comparison to Lebanon.
This is not to diminish the pain suffered by all of Klal Yisroel by the loss of life and limb by civilian and soldier alike. The pain is there and it hurts. But when trying to determine who won and who lost, it should certainly be concluded that Lebanon lost… even if Israel did not win.
But the fact still is that in PR terms Hezbollah won by merely surviving. And they survived in a lot better shape than anyone predicted… it seems. And the kidnapped soldiers remain kidnapped. So… many people are asking, “What has Israel gained by all of this”? Hezbollah is as defiant as ever and claiming victory.
Everyone was expecting (or at least hoping for) a quick “6 day war” like victory, including me. But what we all failed to realize was that this war was different in kind than any of the previous wars Israel fought. This time Israel was not fighting a country with identifiable soldiers. Israel was fighting an Islamist ideology with invisible fighters who were one moment Islamist Hezbollah terrorists and the next moment civilians who blended right in with their neighbors… living in heavily populated civilian neighborhoods with their families and friends. It is almost impossible to have any kind of victory under these circumstances… certainly not the type of decisive victory that one nation can have over another.
So before one blames Israel for not wining one should consider the very different nature of this war versus the wars of he past. The United States is currently experiencing the same type of problem in Iraq. They too are fighting an invisible terrorist army.
That being said there is legitimate criticism of the way in which Israel prosecuted the war. In an attempt to minimize Israeli casualties, PM Olmert tried to conduct the entire war from the air. He did not want to send in ground troops as that would have significantly increased casualties. Virtually everyone, including me, feels this was a mistake. Had they gone in on the ground immediately, there could have been a more decisive victory with less Lebanese “civilian” casualties, albeit more Israeli ones.
To be fair this is 20/20 hindsight. No one anticipated the fire-power of Hezbollah. And no one anticipated their ability to resist the Israeli onslaught. By the time Israel decided to send in ground troops, it was very late in the game.
But, even with this criticism, and with Hezbollah claiming victory and world punditry agreeing, I think it is too early to tell what the final result of this war will be. Will we return to the status quo ante? I don’t know but I don’t think so. I certainly hope not. What the final outcome will be I don’t know. My gut feeling is that there will be some material improvement in the security situation for Israel. Prime Minister Olmert cannot be blamed for not having a decisive win. No Israeli leader could have accomplished that, in my view.
As for the larger picture, Islamism has survived this battle and until the ideology itself is somehow destroyed it will always remain a mortal danger to… not only Israel… but the entire world.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Tosphos and Shakespeare
Once again in the “House of Israel” Centrist Hashkafos have come under attack by members of the right. This time it is from an American who is a Rosh HaYeshiva in Israel. But it wasn’t only the Hashkafa that was attacked, it was a personal attack against the very person I consider to be the ultimate expositor of Centrist Hashkafa, HaRav Aaron Lichtenstein. It was specifically stated with respect to Rav Lichtenstein's view about the positive impact Mada can have on Limud HaTorah.
Over Shabbos, an acquaintance of mine who reads my blog and who is a Talmid of this Rosh HaYeshiva told me the following had occurred when he was there; he heard it with his own ears. When I pressed him about the veracity of the story, he confirmed that the following is exactly what happened:
During the course of a Sicha, this Rosh HaYeshiva decided to say to all the Bnei HaYeshiva words to this effect: “A certain Rosh Yeshiva has had the Chutzpa to say that one must know Shakespeare in order to understand Tosfos! Well, not only does that Rosh Yeshiva not understand Tosphos, he doesn’t understand Shakespeare either!”
This blew my mind! Just when I thought I had heard it all, another disgusting diatribe reared its ugly head again. This Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva had absolutely no compunction about bashing one of the finest minds in the Torah world. And not only did he bash him personally but by implication he bashed all people who have similar views, including my own Rebbe, Rav Aaron Soloveichik and the Novominsker Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow! And he did so without even telling the truth. Either he misunderstood it… or he deliberately lied!
Rabbi Lichtenstein never said anything of the kind. What he did say is that his knowledge of English literature helped… him… understand certain portions of Tanach better. He had related this information about himself to demonstrate how Mada can increase one’s understanding of some areas of Torah. He no more thinks that Shakespeare can enhance one’s understanding of Tosphos than I do.
Futhermore, Rav Lichtenstein has explicitly stated that not everyone needs to know any given piece of Mada to understand any portion of Torah. Only that for some… perhaps many… people it does. He fully agreed that Rav Chaim Soloveichik in no way needed Mada for him to reach his heights of understanding Torah. Rav Lichtenstein was only speaking for himself, and others like him. That this Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva demeaned Rav Lichtenstein the way he did smacks of the worst kind of Lashan Hora or worse yet, Motzei ShemRa!
I recall when I was in the Beis Hamedrash in HTC, one of my fellow Talmidim who was very close to Rabbi Perlow, (a graduate of NYU, if I recall correctly) asked him why he went to college. Rabbi Perlow told him that the reason he went to college is so that he could understand certain Sugyos in Shas better. Will this Charedi RY now bash the Novominsker the same way he bashed Rav Lichtenstein? Will he say about Rav Perlow that not only does he not know how to learn a Tosphos, he does not know Shakespeare either?
In his Halachic analysis of Torah U’Mada, Rav Aaron Soloveichik mentions the introduction to the P’as Hashulchan. The author says in the name of the GRA that “All knowledge is necessary for the understanding of Torah.” Rav Baruch MiShklav, a Talmid of the GRA, in the introduction to his translation of Euclidean geometry says in the name of the GRA, “For every measure of knowledge one is missing, in Torah this lack of knowledge is magnified one-hundred fold”. And then Rav Soloveichik posits, “the Malbim who defined Mada as the knowledge of nature isn’t limiting himself to natural science alone.”
Is this Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva about to bash Rav Aaron Soloveichik, the Malbim, and the GRA? Do they too not understand either Tosphos or Shakespeare?!
This is the same Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva that bashes Yeshiva University all the time and succeeds in discouraging all of his students from attending it upon their return to America. This is also the same Rosh HaYeshiva who when he comes to America to solicit funds for his Yeshiva stays at his brother’s house, a man who is a decades long rabbi of a non-Mechitza Shul!
To this Rosh HaYeshiva, I would say, if you want to bash someone, start with your own brother. It is time for your own Chesbon HaNefesh. And as we approach Elul… stop lying about those with whom your disagree.
Over Shabbos, an acquaintance of mine who reads my blog and who is a Talmid of this Rosh HaYeshiva told me the following had occurred when he was there; he heard it with his own ears. When I pressed him about the veracity of the story, he confirmed that the following is exactly what happened:
During the course of a Sicha, this Rosh HaYeshiva decided to say to all the Bnei HaYeshiva words to this effect: “A certain Rosh Yeshiva has had the Chutzpa to say that one must know Shakespeare in order to understand Tosfos! Well, not only does that Rosh Yeshiva not understand Tosphos, he doesn’t understand Shakespeare either!”
This blew my mind! Just when I thought I had heard it all, another disgusting diatribe reared its ugly head again. This Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva had absolutely no compunction about bashing one of the finest minds in the Torah world. And not only did he bash him personally but by implication he bashed all people who have similar views, including my own Rebbe, Rav Aaron Soloveichik and the Novominsker Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow! And he did so without even telling the truth. Either he misunderstood it… or he deliberately lied!
Rabbi Lichtenstein never said anything of the kind. What he did say is that his knowledge of English literature helped… him… understand certain portions of Tanach better. He had related this information about himself to demonstrate how Mada can increase one’s understanding of some areas of Torah. He no more thinks that Shakespeare can enhance one’s understanding of Tosphos than I do.
Futhermore, Rav Lichtenstein has explicitly stated that not everyone needs to know any given piece of Mada to understand any portion of Torah. Only that for some… perhaps many… people it does. He fully agreed that Rav Chaim Soloveichik in no way needed Mada for him to reach his heights of understanding Torah. Rav Lichtenstein was only speaking for himself, and others like him. That this Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva demeaned Rav Lichtenstein the way he did smacks of the worst kind of Lashan Hora or worse yet, Motzei ShemRa!
I recall when I was in the Beis Hamedrash in HTC, one of my fellow Talmidim who was very close to Rabbi Perlow, (a graduate of NYU, if I recall correctly) asked him why he went to college. Rabbi Perlow told him that the reason he went to college is so that he could understand certain Sugyos in Shas better. Will this Charedi RY now bash the Novominsker the same way he bashed Rav Lichtenstein? Will he say about Rav Perlow that not only does he not know how to learn a Tosphos, he does not know Shakespeare either?
In his Halachic analysis of Torah U’Mada, Rav Aaron Soloveichik mentions the introduction to the P’as Hashulchan. The author says in the name of the GRA that “All knowledge is necessary for the understanding of Torah.” Rav Baruch MiShklav, a Talmid of the GRA, in the introduction to his translation of Euclidean geometry says in the name of the GRA, “For every measure of knowledge one is missing, in Torah this lack of knowledge is magnified one-hundred fold”. And then Rav Soloveichik posits, “the Malbim who defined Mada as the knowledge of nature isn’t limiting himself to natural science alone.”
Is this Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva about to bash Rav Aaron Soloveichik, the Malbim, and the GRA? Do they too not understand either Tosphos or Shakespeare?!
This is the same Charedi Rosh HaYeshiva that bashes Yeshiva University all the time and succeeds in discouraging all of his students from attending it upon their return to America. This is also the same Rosh HaYeshiva who when he comes to America to solicit funds for his Yeshiva stays at his brother’s house, a man who is a decades long rabbi of a non-Mechitza Shul!
To this Rosh HaYeshiva, I would say, if you want to bash someone, start with your own brother. It is time for your own Chesbon HaNefesh. And as we approach Elul… stop lying about those with whom your disagree.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Outing an Un-Orthodox Jew
The most recent post in Fred’s blog tells us that the blogger Un-Orthodox Jew has been “outed”. His identity has been exposed. I am normally opposed to exposing the identity of an anonymous blogger who wishes to remain anonymous. In general I believe it to be violating the Issur of being Megaleh Sod (revealing a secret about someone who does not wish t to be revealed). But in the case of UOJ, I’m not so sure it was a bad thing to do. In fact it was the right hing to do. By exposing the identity of someone who causes harm and thus preventing him from ever doing it again, there is a Toeles… an over-riding purpose where the positive consequences far outweigh the normally harmful effects of exposing someone against his will.
I commented on Fred’s blog about my feelings on UOJ’s “outing” and wish to repeat them in a blog-post where it will get more exposure than in a comments section.
UOJ provided a valuable service. He exposed people who were involved in some of the most harmful and despicable behavior one can imagine. Behavior that ruined people’s lives. And he exposed those who covered it up. People who should know better. For this, UOJ deserves a hero’s accolade. Thank God the crime, the criminal, and those who covered it up for decades were finally exposed and are now being vigorously prosecuted.
But in one particular instance that I am personally aware of he crossed a line. (And where there is one, there could easily be others.)
When one begins to post about a person based on the testimony of one uncorroborated individual claiming to be a victim, and then carelessly eviscerates that person's integrity and reputation, there is no excuse for that. Any good purpose here-to-fore achieved becomes secondary to the ruining of a good person’s reputation so carelessly. It is evil. The great service he provided on his blog stops being a forum for truth and becomes a forum for rumor, conjecture, and innuendo. And it can and does unfairly destroy reputations and careers.
Just as it is evil to cover up the behavior of sexual predators, so too is it evil to carelessly accuse by name, as UOJ did, individuals who have had absolutely no history of sexual abuse in their long and distinguished careers. For that reason alone, his outing was not only justified, but necessary. And frankly he deserves what he gets.
It's too bad. Had he stuck to a more factually based blog, he could have continued to provide a forum for the abused. As it was, his blog turned into a forum for evil itself, where he was the perpetrator.
First you get the facts straight. Then you get some corroboration. Then you can make the accusations. But to ruin an innocent man's reputation and career based on one individual's testimony is not only evil, but Assur in the extreme. It is a spiritual "murder" that is almost impossible to do Teshuva for.
You can't say that as long as he did some good, it's OK. You can't sacrifice innocent people so easily. He crossed a line. His integrity at that point was shot and he lost all of his credibility.
I commented on Fred’s blog about my feelings on UOJ’s “outing” and wish to repeat them in a blog-post where it will get more exposure than in a comments section.
UOJ provided a valuable service. He exposed people who were involved in some of the most harmful and despicable behavior one can imagine. Behavior that ruined people’s lives. And he exposed those who covered it up. People who should know better. For this, UOJ deserves a hero’s accolade. Thank God the crime, the criminal, and those who covered it up for decades were finally exposed and are now being vigorously prosecuted.
But in one particular instance that I am personally aware of he crossed a line. (And where there is one, there could easily be others.)
When one begins to post about a person based on the testimony of one uncorroborated individual claiming to be a victim, and then carelessly eviscerates that person's integrity and reputation, there is no excuse for that. Any good purpose here-to-fore achieved becomes secondary to the ruining of a good person’s reputation so carelessly. It is evil. The great service he provided on his blog stops being a forum for truth and becomes a forum for rumor, conjecture, and innuendo. And it can and does unfairly destroy reputations and careers.
Just as it is evil to cover up the behavior of sexual predators, so too is it evil to carelessly accuse by name, as UOJ did, individuals who have had absolutely no history of sexual abuse in their long and distinguished careers. For that reason alone, his outing was not only justified, but necessary. And frankly he deserves what he gets.
It's too bad. Had he stuck to a more factually based blog, he could have continued to provide a forum for the abused. As it was, his blog turned into a forum for evil itself, where he was the perpetrator.
First you get the facts straight. Then you get some corroboration. Then you can make the accusations. But to ruin an innocent man's reputation and career based on one individual's testimony is not only evil, but Assur in the extreme. It is a spiritual "murder" that is almost impossible to do Teshuva for.
You can't say that as long as he did some good, it's OK. You can't sacrifice innocent people so easily. He crossed a line. His integrity at that point was shot and he lost all of his credibility.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Definitive Centrism
I have just read a wonderful exposition of the elements of Centrist Orthodoxy by HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein. This essay has been around for awhile and I have only periodically looked at portions of it. Today, I took the time to read it.
I must say, I have a newfound awe for Harav Lichtenstein. I never met him personally, but am quite familiar with his Hashkafic perspective and do not recall ever disagreeing with it.
After reading this essay, I stand in awe of his brilliance and his ability to define, describe, delineate… contrast and compare all of Centrism’s components and to compare them with the Hashkafos of the right. I never realized just how identical our positions are until now. His views are mine, my views are his. There is virtually no difference between us, except for the very obvious genius he has and I can only be envious of.
Just about everything he discusses in his essay, I have discussed and have presented from the same perspective… the only difference being the eruditeness and thouroughness of his presentation.
As my bio indicates, my Hashkafos are a result of many influences in my life, primary amongst them being my Rebbe Rav Aaron Soloveichik. But the essence of my philosophy of Judaism is not identical to any of those august individuals. For the first time in my life, I can say with great clarity that I have found my ideological (although far from intellectual) twin.
While it is likely that one can find differences between us, they are probably insignificant. If one wants to know the essence of my Hashkafos, indeed, the essence of Centrism, read the article available here. He does a far better job explaining what I consider to be the Amito Shel Torah than I ever could.
I must say, I have a newfound awe for Harav Lichtenstein. I never met him personally, but am quite familiar with his Hashkafic perspective and do not recall ever disagreeing with it.
After reading this essay, I stand in awe of his brilliance and his ability to define, describe, delineate… contrast and compare all of Centrism’s components and to compare them with the Hashkafos of the right. I never realized just how identical our positions are until now. His views are mine, my views are his. There is virtually no difference between us, except for the very obvious genius he has and I can only be envious of.
Just about everything he discusses in his essay, I have discussed and have presented from the same perspective… the only difference being the eruditeness and thouroughness of his presentation.
As my bio indicates, my Hashkafos are a result of many influences in my life, primary amongst them being my Rebbe Rav Aaron Soloveichik. But the essence of my philosophy of Judaism is not identical to any of those august individuals. For the first time in my life, I can say with great clarity that I have found my ideological (although far from intellectual) twin.
While it is likely that one can find differences between us, they are probably insignificant. If one wants to know the essence of my Hashkafos, indeed, the essence of Centrism, read the article available here. He does a far better job explaining what I consider to be the Amito Shel Torah than I ever could.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Keitzad Merakdin Lifnei Hakalla
There has been a discussion on Areivim on the issue of bringing the Kallah over to the men’s side so that the men can participate in the Mitzvah of Rikud Lifnei HaKallah. "Keitzad Merakdin Lifnei Hakalla"… The Gemarah asks. … How… not if! The Kallah can enjoy the dancing and all kinds of fun shtick the dancers do to be Mesameach the Chasan and the Kallah together. To put it the way one Areivim poster did:
“Right in front of her so she can enjoy it!!! While she is sitting with the Chasan and they are laughing and having the time of their lives!”
This is so true. Unfortunately this is Minhag is quickly falling into disuse. The more Charedi a wedding is, the less likely it is that the Kallah will come over to the Chassan’s side. And it is wrong. The Right Wing Roshei yeshiva that I know of always perk up and increase their dancing when the Kallah comes over. Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, a very talented and lively dancer is at his best when the Kallah is present. Yet this Minhag is increasingly becoming extinct. It isn’t yet… there are still some Charedi weddings where you will find this Minhag, but is becoming harder and harder to find.
Why must the Yeshiva world take a beautiful custom and deep-six it into the ashbin of history? Why is it so important for the Right Wing to chase down every Chumra they can find?
It wasn’t always that way. I have pointed this out many times in the past. Back in pre-holocaust Europe, the Yeshivishe world was unrecognizable from what it is today. Litvishe Bachurim were forbidden to have payos and beards. Suits and hats were light colored, mixed seating at weddings were the order of the day. And much, much more. But today, every thing is topsy turvy. All of the above Minhagim have been dropped in favor of Chumros. The latest one being dropped is the Mihag of the Kallah coming over to the Chasan’s side... a beautiful Minhag dating back to the Talmudic era and before. Keitzad, merakdim lifnei hakallah? How the Gemarah asks do we dance before the Kallah. The Simchas Chasan V’Kallah was extolled and the question reflects not whether one should... but rather how... one can do it so as to best enhance her Simcha. And the Roshei Yeshiva know that. Yet they are allowing or perhaps even encouraging their Chasanim to eliminate that Minhag form their weddings!
There can be only one answer and it is obvious: The Chasidic influence post holocaust. Once the massive influx of Chasidim post holocaust to America took place and Chasdim were no longer as separated by geography as they were, by and large in Europe, the Lithuanian Rabbanim increasingly adopted more and more of their customs and Chumros so as not to be “out frummed” by them. It has devolved into a chase for Frumkeit… the false god of the right. Every single Chumra adopted in the last 60 years by the Yeshivisahe/Litvishe world is one that already existed in the Chasidic world: treating their Roshei Yeshiva like Chasidic Rebbes, darker clothes, blacker hats, peyos, beards, separate seating at weddings, and now keeping the Kallah away from her Chasan for the entire wedding dance. There seems to be no end to the chase by the yeshiva world to becoming Chasidim. If this keeps up, they may very well succeed. What’s next? The Mitzvah Tanz?
“Right in front of her so she can enjoy it!!! While she is sitting with the Chasan and they are laughing and having the time of their lives!”
This is so true. Unfortunately this is Minhag is quickly falling into disuse. The more Charedi a wedding is, the less likely it is that the Kallah will come over to the Chassan’s side. And it is wrong. The Right Wing Roshei yeshiva that I know of always perk up and increase their dancing when the Kallah comes over. Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, a very talented and lively dancer is at his best when the Kallah is present. Yet this Minhag is increasingly becoming extinct. It isn’t yet… there are still some Charedi weddings where you will find this Minhag, but is becoming harder and harder to find.
Why must the Yeshiva world take a beautiful custom and deep-six it into the ashbin of history? Why is it so important for the Right Wing to chase down every Chumra they can find?
It wasn’t always that way. I have pointed this out many times in the past. Back in pre-holocaust Europe, the Yeshivishe world was unrecognizable from what it is today. Litvishe Bachurim were forbidden to have payos and beards. Suits and hats were light colored, mixed seating at weddings were the order of the day. And much, much more. But today, every thing is topsy turvy. All of the above Minhagim have been dropped in favor of Chumros. The latest one being dropped is the Mihag of the Kallah coming over to the Chasan’s side... a beautiful Minhag dating back to the Talmudic era and before. Keitzad, merakdim lifnei hakallah? How the Gemarah asks do we dance before the Kallah. The Simchas Chasan V’Kallah was extolled and the question reflects not whether one should... but rather how... one can do it so as to best enhance her Simcha. And the Roshei Yeshiva know that. Yet they are allowing or perhaps even encouraging their Chasanim to eliminate that Minhag form their weddings!
There can be only one answer and it is obvious: The Chasidic influence post holocaust. Once the massive influx of Chasidim post holocaust to America took place and Chasdim were no longer as separated by geography as they were, by and large in Europe, the Lithuanian Rabbanim increasingly adopted more and more of their customs and Chumros so as not to be “out frummed” by them. It has devolved into a chase for Frumkeit… the false god of the right. Every single Chumra adopted in the last 60 years by the Yeshivisahe/Litvishe world is one that already existed in the Chasidic world: treating their Roshei Yeshiva like Chasidic Rebbes, darker clothes, blacker hats, peyos, beards, separate seating at weddings, and now keeping the Kallah away from her Chasan for the entire wedding dance. There seems to be no end to the chase by the yeshiva world to becoming Chasidim. If this keeps up, they may very well succeed. What’s next? The Mitzvah Tanz?
Experience the Wild Side of Judaism...
I'm pleased to announce that Rabbi Natan Slifkin will be gracing the environs of Chicago, Illinois. On Tuesday, August 15th from 10am – 1pm, the author of such books as "Nature’s Song", "Mysterious Creatures", and most recently, "The Challenge of Creation" will be giving his famous Zoo Torah Tour at Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo. Price: Adults $20, children $15. There are a limited number of spaces! Registration is required. email: zoorabbi@zootorah.com
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
College for Charedim
There is a somewhat lengthy and insightful analysis of the relative values of secular studies as measured against a “Torah Only” education by Jak Black in a new group blog called Mishmar.
I believe that the subject deserves a post of its own here. The points I am about to make are not meant to reflect all the principles of Torah U’Mada. They are rather an application of those principles as applied to the study of secular studies in the Charedi world in Israel and in the West. It is in that spirit that I write the following.
Although, in Israel a formal program of secular studies by Charedim is frowned upon and completely missing in any Charedi curriculum beyond 8th grade, I think even that community recognizes that there is at least some value in secular studies, at least in terms of Parnassa.
The truth is however, that there is value for Charedim, even beyond Parnassa. Aside from the benefits reflected in the business, technical, and scientific fields, there is value as well in the humanities. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein once famously wrote that had he not studied the great literary works, he would not have understood certain portions of Tanach as well he now does. There is also value in the methodology of study found in the secular system that is not found in the Yeshiva system. The point is that as important as Torah knowledge is, secular knowledge has intrinsic value too.
But at least there is an acknowledgement by some of Charedi leadership even in Israel, that secular studies have value as a means toward Parnasa. There is a fledgling trend in Charedi circles in Israel towards allowing Charedim, after they spend many years in Kollel, to attend schools with training programs that are very job specific, like accounting or computers. There is a complete avoidance of any peripheral studies that are not directly related to it. But is that really enough?
In the business environment of today, employers offering the better jobs look for more than just specific knowledge about the business they run. They look for a well rounded individual that has learned skills not only directly related to the tasks of the job but also knowledge and skills in other fields. Experience has taught them that extra-career knowledge can often enhance performance by employees in their own fields. Good jobs are sometimes more dependant on the over-all skills learned in a college experience than in the direct subject matter studied. It is very complex job market out there with a lot of variables. It is important to be educated in ways that will provide every opportunity to succeed. And colleges and universities are currently the most efficient way to gain such knowledge.
True, if one excels at Torah learning and the vocational goal is a lifetime of full time Limud HaTorah then one need not learn outside disciplines. I would still argue that a good secular education can even help one in their Limud HaTorah, as it did for Rav Aaron Lichtenstien.
But if one’s ultimate purpose in life is not full time Limud HaTorah then a good secular studies education is invaluable in developing marketable skills. And the best place for that today even for Charedim is in colleges and universities. That of course would require a sea change by the Charedi leadership that would allow for the inclusion of at least a minimal secular studies program through high school... a change that I’m not quite sure will ever happen. But it should. It has too.
There are two very important caveats with respect to going to college. One is the danger of exposing oneself to a pervasive attitude of Apikursus which is inherent in the system and is taught directly and indirectly. The typical Charedi student is completely unprepared for such an encounter. And there is also the problem encountering such controversial subjects as evolution. If one is not properly prepared, it can be very dangerous to one’s spiritual health.
The other caveat is the exposure to unprecedented levels of immorality that so pervades college campuses.
These are two very legitimate concerns. And the more Charedi an environment one comes from, the more unprepared and dangerous it is for one’s spiritual health. These problems cannot be over-emphasized. They are quite real and quite dangerous for anyone, even those who have been “vetted” through the more open environment of a Centrist upbringing.
Does this mean that college is just too dangerous to attend? …that the risks are too great to take advantage of the benefits?
No. All of my children, and virtually all of their classmates attended college and their experiences were just fine. Those that studied in secular colleges saw what was going on around the perrifery but it didn't concern them. They studied what they had to in order to reach their goals. And in doing so they encountered little Apikursus which their upbringing and their particular yeshiva high school educations enabled them to tackle.
You don't need to go to an "ivy league” type of university to get a decent education. True, such schools will often lead to better, more prestigious jobs… and there are ways to go to such universities and survive, such as living off campus, and staying focused on the education. But it is far from an ideal situation and one is better off avoiding such schools.
There are many roads to Rome. The best option in my view is to attend a Yeshiva college of the type that exists in America and of which there are at least five that I can think of, off hand. Another is to attend a Yeshiva during the day and college at night, as I did. Ner Israel has an excellent program with Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland. Another option is to go to a university that is heavily populated by Orthodox students. Yet another option is to go to an "in town" school and commute daily to classes only.
In the long run, if this path is followed, all Charedim will be better served both individually and as a community, and so will the rest of Klal Yisroel.
I believe that the subject deserves a post of its own here. The points I am about to make are not meant to reflect all the principles of Torah U’Mada. They are rather an application of those principles as applied to the study of secular studies in the Charedi world in Israel and in the West. It is in that spirit that I write the following.
Although, in Israel a formal program of secular studies by Charedim is frowned upon and completely missing in any Charedi curriculum beyond 8th grade, I think even that community recognizes that there is at least some value in secular studies, at least in terms of Parnassa.
The truth is however, that there is value for Charedim, even beyond Parnassa. Aside from the benefits reflected in the business, technical, and scientific fields, there is value as well in the humanities. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein once famously wrote that had he not studied the great literary works, he would not have understood certain portions of Tanach as well he now does. There is also value in the methodology of study found in the secular system that is not found in the Yeshiva system. The point is that as important as Torah knowledge is, secular knowledge has intrinsic value too.
But at least there is an acknowledgement by some of Charedi leadership even in Israel, that secular studies have value as a means toward Parnasa. There is a fledgling trend in Charedi circles in Israel towards allowing Charedim, after they spend many years in Kollel, to attend schools with training programs that are very job specific, like accounting or computers. There is a complete avoidance of any peripheral studies that are not directly related to it. But is that really enough?
In the business environment of today, employers offering the better jobs look for more than just specific knowledge about the business they run. They look for a well rounded individual that has learned skills not only directly related to the tasks of the job but also knowledge and skills in other fields. Experience has taught them that extra-career knowledge can often enhance performance by employees in their own fields. Good jobs are sometimes more dependant on the over-all skills learned in a college experience than in the direct subject matter studied. It is very complex job market out there with a lot of variables. It is important to be educated in ways that will provide every opportunity to succeed. And colleges and universities are currently the most efficient way to gain such knowledge.
True, if one excels at Torah learning and the vocational goal is a lifetime of full time Limud HaTorah then one need not learn outside disciplines. I would still argue that a good secular education can even help one in their Limud HaTorah, as it did for Rav Aaron Lichtenstien.
But if one’s ultimate purpose in life is not full time Limud HaTorah then a good secular studies education is invaluable in developing marketable skills. And the best place for that today even for Charedim is in colleges and universities. That of course would require a sea change by the Charedi leadership that would allow for the inclusion of at least a minimal secular studies program through high school... a change that I’m not quite sure will ever happen. But it should. It has too.
There are two very important caveats with respect to going to college. One is the danger of exposing oneself to a pervasive attitude of Apikursus which is inherent in the system and is taught directly and indirectly. The typical Charedi student is completely unprepared for such an encounter. And there is also the problem encountering such controversial subjects as evolution. If one is not properly prepared, it can be very dangerous to one’s spiritual health.
The other caveat is the exposure to unprecedented levels of immorality that so pervades college campuses.
These are two very legitimate concerns. And the more Charedi an environment one comes from, the more unprepared and dangerous it is for one’s spiritual health. These problems cannot be over-emphasized. They are quite real and quite dangerous for anyone, even those who have been “vetted” through the more open environment of a Centrist upbringing.
Does this mean that college is just too dangerous to attend? …that the risks are too great to take advantage of the benefits?
No. All of my children, and virtually all of their classmates attended college and their experiences were just fine. Those that studied in secular colleges saw what was going on around the perrifery but it didn't concern them. They studied what they had to in order to reach their goals. And in doing so they encountered little Apikursus which their upbringing and their particular yeshiva high school educations enabled them to tackle.
You don't need to go to an "ivy league” type of university to get a decent education. True, such schools will often lead to better, more prestigious jobs… and there are ways to go to such universities and survive, such as living off campus, and staying focused on the education. But it is far from an ideal situation and one is better off avoiding such schools.
There are many roads to Rome. The best option in my view is to attend a Yeshiva college of the type that exists in America and of which there are at least five that I can think of, off hand. Another is to attend a Yeshiva during the day and college at night, as I did. Ner Israel has an excellent program with Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland. Another option is to go to a university that is heavily populated by Orthodox students. Yet another option is to go to an "in town" school and commute daily to classes only.
In the long run, if this path is followed, all Charedim will be better served both individually and as a community, and so will the rest of Klal Yisroel.
Monday, August 07, 2006
On World Opinion
I do not understand how it is possible for the world, no matter how anti-Semitic they are, to miss the fact that so many people in Arab countries support a terrorist organization like Hezbollah. The logic against this type of thinking is over-whelming! It seems idiot proof. Yet this is what’s going on.
Hezbollah (or any Islamist organization, whether it be Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al Qaida) is an organization sworn to the annihilation of the Jewish people? Don’t be fooled by references to Zionist entity. That is a euphemism for the Jewish people. Any one who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. These groups all have one thing in common. They have sworn to fight to the last man standing… to accomplish the eradication of the Jewish nation. The common Arab Muslim holds its leader Hassan Nasrallah up as a hero! Isn’t it obvious that instead of seeing the root cause of the problem, the promise of destruction of an entire nation and Israel’s literal fight for its life, they instead see only “the moment”? They see only bombing raids without context?
It’s obvious to me that generally speaking Arab/Muslims blame Israel for their problems based on the fact that they simply hate Jews. It is obvious that Israel would never fire a single shot at an Arab if they didn’t want us all dead. Yet… the world just stands idly by and allows the Arabs to blame Israel for their problems. Sure, one can have sympathy for the victims. But whose fault is it that there are so many? It’s kind of like blaming someone who is attacked, fights back to defend himself and in the scuffle, some innocent bystander gets hurt. Who is to blame for that innocent person’s injuries, the man who is defending himself from attack, or the attacker?
Isn’t it obvious that the real source of the problem is what it has always been since the Jewish people started reclaiming its holy land? Doesn’t the world understand that the problem began when Jewish immigrants started coming over and started to develop the country, making it desirable to the few indigenous Bedouin Arabs living there… who couldn’t have cared less about it at the time? Isn’t it obvious to the world that the hatred of Jews is not generated by the violence now going on in Lebanon, but that it was already in place learned from an early age? …transmitted from generation to generation… in homes, in schools, and in mosques? Every child is taught that Jews are the devil incarnate, vermin, to be destroyed!
Isn’t obvious to the world that the attitudes held by the Arab Muslims are not unlike those held by Nazis? … Only that this time it is enhanced by religious fervor? Are there exceptions? Sure, there are. But the vast majority of Arabs believe that Jews are evil… and to be destroyed at all cost. And the more religious they are the more they believe it… virulently so!
Sure… there is carnage in Lebanon. Sure… Israeli bombs are responsible for it. But doesn’t the world realize that the “innocent” civilians are imbedded with terrorist Hezbollah fighters who use them either as shields or martyrs… being a win/win for them either way in terms of PR? Doesn’t the world realize that a non-uniformed Hezbollah fighter who dies is automatically defined as a civilian since he is now lying dead amongst other civilians wearing civilian clothes? He has no military uniform. Or military tags identifying him as a Hezbollah terrorist. So when the body count takes place, he is identified as a civilian. The Lebanese government knows this. But they don’t care. They know Hezbollah is at fault. But they don’t care. Thye blame Israel. “Israel is bombing innocent civilians”. No context. Only praise for the Hezbollah’s heroic fighters resisting big bad “paper tiger” Israel. They cheer Hezbollah. And its leader Hassan Nasrallah is their new hero.
I’m sickened by the world’s response. In their hearts they have to know that it is Israel who wants to live in peace. In their hearts they have to know, especially after Olso, that Israel is willing to go the extra mile for peace. But the world refuses to speak the truth. They just look at the conflict and say, “End the violence”, as though nothing else is relevant! Thank God at least one nation (outside of Israel itself) sees the truth and speaks the truth. And thank God it is the most powerful nation on earth… by far! The world can squawk all it wants. But as long as Israel has the backing of the Medinah Shel Chesed, it can continue to defend itself.
I only wish people like Nebraska’s Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel (interviewed on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday) weren’t so stupid. He thinks appeasing Arab concerns is what is in America’s best interest. (Forget about doing the right thing instead of the expedient thing). He thinks that all this violence increases Arab hatred for the US and Israel. How stupid does one have to be? Doesn’t he know the hatred is already there? Doesn’t he remember 9/11? Doesn’t he know that hatred of the US by Islamist Arabs is based on US’s support for the “Zionist entity” whose hatred is in the mother’s milk of every Islamist Arab woman (who are constantly increasing exponentially every generation by virtue of their high birth rate)? Does he not have any sense of right and wrong? What an amoral idiot!
I know it is politically incorrect, but Israel does not need to cease fire. What they need to do is… whatever it takes to win. It’s time to inflict major casualties on Lebanon. We need unconditional surrender from our enemies! We need Harry Truman like resolve to do what it takes. Israel has the muscle. It’s time to start using it and stop worrying about world opinion. Those European cowards are powerless to do anything about it anyway. And when the job is finished and Hezbollah, and Hamas, et al surrenders, the entire world will be better off.
Hezbollah (or any Islamist organization, whether it be Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al Qaida) is an organization sworn to the annihilation of the Jewish people? Don’t be fooled by references to Zionist entity. That is a euphemism for the Jewish people. Any one who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. These groups all have one thing in common. They have sworn to fight to the last man standing… to accomplish the eradication of the Jewish nation. The common Arab Muslim holds its leader Hassan Nasrallah up as a hero! Isn’t it obvious that instead of seeing the root cause of the problem, the promise of destruction of an entire nation and Israel’s literal fight for its life, they instead see only “the moment”? They see only bombing raids without context?
It’s obvious to me that generally speaking Arab/Muslims blame Israel for their problems based on the fact that they simply hate Jews. It is obvious that Israel would never fire a single shot at an Arab if they didn’t want us all dead. Yet… the world just stands idly by and allows the Arabs to blame Israel for their problems. Sure, one can have sympathy for the victims. But whose fault is it that there are so many? It’s kind of like blaming someone who is attacked, fights back to defend himself and in the scuffle, some innocent bystander gets hurt. Who is to blame for that innocent person’s injuries, the man who is defending himself from attack, or the attacker?
Isn’t it obvious that the real source of the problem is what it has always been since the Jewish people started reclaiming its holy land? Doesn’t the world understand that the problem began when Jewish immigrants started coming over and started to develop the country, making it desirable to the few indigenous Bedouin Arabs living there… who couldn’t have cared less about it at the time? Isn’t it obvious to the world that the hatred of Jews is not generated by the violence now going on in Lebanon, but that it was already in place learned from an early age? …transmitted from generation to generation… in homes, in schools, and in mosques? Every child is taught that Jews are the devil incarnate, vermin, to be destroyed!
Isn’t obvious to the world that the attitudes held by the Arab Muslims are not unlike those held by Nazis? … Only that this time it is enhanced by religious fervor? Are there exceptions? Sure, there are. But the vast majority of Arabs believe that Jews are evil… and to be destroyed at all cost. And the more religious they are the more they believe it… virulently so!
Sure… there is carnage in Lebanon. Sure… Israeli bombs are responsible for it. But doesn’t the world realize that the “innocent” civilians are imbedded with terrorist Hezbollah fighters who use them either as shields or martyrs… being a win/win for them either way in terms of PR? Doesn’t the world realize that a non-uniformed Hezbollah fighter who dies is automatically defined as a civilian since he is now lying dead amongst other civilians wearing civilian clothes? He has no military uniform. Or military tags identifying him as a Hezbollah terrorist. So when the body count takes place, he is identified as a civilian. The Lebanese government knows this. But they don’t care. They know Hezbollah is at fault. But they don’t care. Thye blame Israel. “Israel is bombing innocent civilians”. No context. Only praise for the Hezbollah’s heroic fighters resisting big bad “paper tiger” Israel. They cheer Hezbollah. And its leader Hassan Nasrallah is their new hero.
I’m sickened by the world’s response. In their hearts they have to know that it is Israel who wants to live in peace. In their hearts they have to know, especially after Olso, that Israel is willing to go the extra mile for peace. But the world refuses to speak the truth. They just look at the conflict and say, “End the violence”, as though nothing else is relevant! Thank God at least one nation (outside of Israel itself) sees the truth and speaks the truth. And thank God it is the most powerful nation on earth… by far! The world can squawk all it wants. But as long as Israel has the backing of the Medinah Shel Chesed, it can continue to defend itself.
I only wish people like Nebraska’s Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel (interviewed on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday) weren’t so stupid. He thinks appeasing Arab concerns is what is in America’s best interest. (Forget about doing the right thing instead of the expedient thing). He thinks that all this violence increases Arab hatred for the US and Israel. How stupid does one have to be? Doesn’t he know the hatred is already there? Doesn’t he remember 9/11? Doesn’t he know that hatred of the US by Islamist Arabs is based on US’s support for the “Zionist entity” whose hatred is in the mother’s milk of every Islamist Arab woman (who are constantly increasing exponentially every generation by virtue of their high birth rate)? Does he not have any sense of right and wrong? What an amoral idiot!
I know it is politically incorrect, but Israel does not need to cease fire. What they need to do is… whatever it takes to win. It’s time to inflict major casualties on Lebanon. We need unconditional surrender from our enemies! We need Harry Truman like resolve to do what it takes. Israel has the muscle. It’s time to start using it and stop worrying about world opinion. Those European cowards are powerless to do anything about it anyway. And when the job is finished and Hezbollah, and Hamas, et al surrenders, the entire world will be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)