The Rambam tells us in his great philosophical work, the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed) that Chazal, our sages, were expert only in the science of their times and were thus limited by it. This is unlike their Torah knowledge which was Divine in origin. This view of the fallibility of Chazal in matters of science has recently fallen out of favor in much of the Torah world. It is in fact often cited as the more important of the two reasons why Rabbi Slifkins’ books were banned. (The other is the oft discussed one here about the age of the universe).
Until recently it was a perfectly legitimate approach to our understanding of the sages to take an approach that has been here-to-fore espoused by a Rishon, a medieval commentator. …especially one with the stature of the Rambam perhaps the greatest medieval commentators all. The Rambam was certainly a place where one could hang his theological hat.
But… as Rav Aharon Feldman explained in his famous letter regarding why he agreed with the Ban of Rabbi Slifkin’s books: ‘That was then. This is now.’ We are required to listen to our current sages directives and disregard the words of those Rishonim who disagree. It was OK for them but not for us.
The example he used to illustrate the point was the famous edict in the Gemarah that with few exceptions, we always Paskin like Beis Hillel in their disputes with Beis Shamai. In our day it is forbidden to Paskin like Beis Shamai even though in his day it was permitted. If I recall correctly, the example he used from them is the argument about whether there will necessarily be a Moshiach. Today that belief is one of our essential ones. In the days of Chazal, one did not need to believe in the coming of the Messiah.
But I wonder if we can extrapolate from the decisive statements in the Gemarah about which of our sages can no longer listen to... to requiring abandonment of a here-to-fore perfectly acceptable Rishonic position. There was no such clearly decisive statement ever made about which Rishon to Paskin like until a few years ago. Since there was no decisive Psak at the time about it, it would seem to me to be a legitmate approach to side with a Rishon in a matter of Hashkafa that for centuries has been an acceptable approach. One of many different ones.
The most stark of the contradictions between today’s science and Chazal’s is in the area of Refuos, medical treatments. If one looks at all the treatments listed in the Gemarah one will be tempted to snicker at them. The truth is that we shouldn’t. Did they perhaps work in some way? They probably did. They must have or they wouldn’t have been listed as such. Would they work today? I don’t know… I don’t think they can be duplicated exactly. It is also quite possible for example to say that many of the procedures in the Gemarah may have contained some medicinal benefits within them that do in fact work.
The point to be made is that this was probably the best medical knowledge of Chazal’s time. Today’s knowledge is far superior to that. And tomorrow’s knowledge will be superior to ours. To say that Chazal’s medical remedies represent a divine revelation and is recorded in the Gemarah as such… in the same way Halacha did is to undermine rather than strengthen their authority, in my view. But… my view has fallen out of favor and is now deemed heresy. Or something very close to it.
I’m not saying that other points of view on the subject are illegitimate. One such view for example is that the Refuos of the Gemarah no longer work because of something called Nishtana Hateva. This means that nature has changed and essentially evolved to a point where these remedies are no longer effective, though they once were. (…which is kind of an ironic position to take if one so rejects the mechanisms of evolution). In my view the idea that nature has changed so drastically in a relatively short period of evolutionally time is a bit of a stretch. It relies too heavily on violating the laws of nature. I prefer the Rambam’s explanation.
In any case there is an fascinating and informative article on the subject in today’s Jerusalem Post. Well worth the read.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Flexing Religious Muscle
Jonathan Rosenblum has a fascinating article at cross-currents in which he expresses a dilemma. In a nutshell the question he asks is the following:
When a once totally secular neighborhood in Israel becomes inhabited by a super-majority of Charedim, should the Charedim now have right to force the neighborhood to operate only by Halachic standards? The specific example he gives is a community swimming pool.
At its inception it was a totally mixed swimming facility. When enough Charedim moved in they requested that there be separate hours for men and for women so that their own families could benefit. So far so good. But now that there is a super-majority there. 70% Charedim. Should they turn it into a totally separate facility?
It is one thing for a religious community to set up Halachic standards from the start. But is it OK or perhaps even an obligation to change things in a previously all secular neighborhood because they now have the power to do so?
Jonathan goes into some detail in to explaining the various points to be considered. Not feeling qualified to answer the question himself, he says:
The issues of how we relate to our non-religious neighbors and to Israeli democracy in general are not trivial, and they will not go away. They require the attention of our finest Torah scholars.
I lean heavily to not ‘shoving religion down people’s throats’ …and I think that was the intent of Chazan Ish as well. Here is how Jonathan expresses it:
The Chazon Ish writes that the din of mordim v’ein ma’alin for flagrant evildoers no longer applies in a period of hester panim. Application of the din today would only be viewed by the general public as an act of cruelty and violence. Rather than preventing breaches in the fence of mitzvah observance, as originally intended, its application would only result in further breaches (Chazon Ish, Yore Deah 2:16). In a similar vein, the Chazon Ish told a certain rabbi that he should allow Shabbos violators to be given aliyos. Today, when Shabbos violators are the majority, refusing to give them aliyos will not cause them to repent, and thus the migdar milsa is no longer in force.
It is also clear that there are circumstances in which we do not have to use every ounce of our coercive power. The Chazon Ish writes in one of his letters: “It is impossible to impose the authority of the Torah upon the masses. [O]nly through the select individuals among the people for whom Torah and mitzvos are their life and soul. . . is it impossible for the authority of Torah to be accepted, even in small measure” (Kovetz Igros III: 102).
I think this clearly tells us how to proceed in the above situation. But Jonathan still feels that we still need to ask ‘our finest Torah scholars’ If that’s true, the question in my mind is who exactly do we rely upon that is in the category of 'our finest Torah scholars'?
Do we speak to a R. Elyashiv? ...or do we speak to a Rav Lichtenstien? I’m not trying to say that they are equally qualified or that they have equal Torah knowledge. I’m not the one to judge that.
But Torah knowledge alone is not enough. Free access to a Posek and the ability to transmit all relevant information accurately to him… in a non biased way... is a necessary component for him to be able to Paskin correctly. Furthermore, a Gadol's Hashkafic orientation is a factor too. And that can easily result in two opposite Halachic decisions on the part of two very qualified Poskim. Who do we listen to then?
Since the fact that cases like this that can easily go either way depending upon whom you ask, one should err on the side of wining friends and influencing people. Allowing a mixed pool to continue that way even when a community has the power to close it will put our secular brethren at ease about the Torah world and can allow us to better approach them and influence their behavior toward the good.
On the other hand, by forcing the pool to eliminate mixed swimming altogether we are upsetting their applecart - and alienating them. Forcing this facility to change - just because we can - will not increase our own observance at all. Nor will it inspire any of our secular brothers to Halachic observance. In fact, the exact opposite will happen. They will find other places to go swimming and will resent the Torah world for forcing them to do that. What has been accomplished in the end?
When it comes to our fellow Jews we are indeed responsible to what ever extent we are able to teach them the beauty of the Torah way of life. That can only be done when there is a basis of good will, not when there is a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude. The latter is the opposite of Arvus… the Torah requirement that all Jews be responsible for each other. It is only through good will, kindness, and understanding that this can work. We need them to look at us and say, “Wow!” I want to be like that!
It is in our behavior to man, that we can inspire behavior to God.
When a once totally secular neighborhood in Israel becomes inhabited by a super-majority of Charedim, should the Charedim now have right to force the neighborhood to operate only by Halachic standards? The specific example he gives is a community swimming pool.
At its inception it was a totally mixed swimming facility. When enough Charedim moved in they requested that there be separate hours for men and for women so that their own families could benefit. So far so good. But now that there is a super-majority there. 70% Charedim. Should they turn it into a totally separate facility?
It is one thing for a religious community to set up Halachic standards from the start. But is it OK or perhaps even an obligation to change things in a previously all secular neighborhood because they now have the power to do so?
Jonathan goes into some detail in to explaining the various points to be considered. Not feeling qualified to answer the question himself, he says:
The issues of how we relate to our non-religious neighbors and to Israeli democracy in general are not trivial, and they will not go away. They require the attention of our finest Torah scholars.
I lean heavily to not ‘shoving religion down people’s throats’ …and I think that was the intent of Chazan Ish as well. Here is how Jonathan expresses it:
The Chazon Ish writes that the din of mordim v’ein ma’alin for flagrant evildoers no longer applies in a period of hester panim. Application of the din today would only be viewed by the general public as an act of cruelty and violence. Rather than preventing breaches in the fence of mitzvah observance, as originally intended, its application would only result in further breaches (Chazon Ish, Yore Deah 2:16). In a similar vein, the Chazon Ish told a certain rabbi that he should allow Shabbos violators to be given aliyos. Today, when Shabbos violators are the majority, refusing to give them aliyos will not cause them to repent, and thus the migdar milsa is no longer in force.
It is also clear that there are circumstances in which we do not have to use every ounce of our coercive power. The Chazon Ish writes in one of his letters: “It is impossible to impose the authority of the Torah upon the masses. [O]nly through the select individuals among the people for whom Torah and mitzvos are their life and soul. . . is it impossible for the authority of Torah to be accepted, even in small measure” (Kovetz Igros III: 102).
I think this clearly tells us how to proceed in the above situation. But Jonathan still feels that we still need to ask ‘our finest Torah scholars’ If that’s true, the question in my mind is who exactly do we rely upon that is in the category of 'our finest Torah scholars'?
Do we speak to a R. Elyashiv? ...or do we speak to a Rav Lichtenstien? I’m not trying to say that they are equally qualified or that they have equal Torah knowledge. I’m not the one to judge that.
But Torah knowledge alone is not enough. Free access to a Posek and the ability to transmit all relevant information accurately to him… in a non biased way... is a necessary component for him to be able to Paskin correctly. Furthermore, a Gadol's Hashkafic orientation is a factor too. And that can easily result in two opposite Halachic decisions on the part of two very qualified Poskim. Who do we listen to then?
Since the fact that cases like this that can easily go either way depending upon whom you ask, one should err on the side of wining friends and influencing people. Allowing a mixed pool to continue that way even when a community has the power to close it will put our secular brethren at ease about the Torah world and can allow us to better approach them and influence their behavior toward the good.
On the other hand, by forcing the pool to eliminate mixed swimming altogether we are upsetting their applecart - and alienating them. Forcing this facility to change - just because we can - will not increase our own observance at all. Nor will it inspire any of our secular brothers to Halachic observance. In fact, the exact opposite will happen. They will find other places to go swimming and will resent the Torah world for forcing them to do that. What has been accomplished in the end?
When it comes to our fellow Jews we are indeed responsible to what ever extent we are able to teach them the beauty of the Torah way of life. That can only be done when there is a basis of good will, not when there is a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude. The latter is the opposite of Arvus… the Torah requirement that all Jews be responsible for each other. It is only through good will, kindness, and understanding that this can work. We need them to look at us and say, “Wow!” I want to be like that!
It is in our behavior to man, that we can inspire behavior to God.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Annapolis and Disobeying Orders
Rebbetzin Toby Katz has an interesting take on the New York Times. Her view seems to be if the ‘Times’ is …for… something, then we ought to be against it. So in her view the fact that the President is now being praised by the ‘Times’ for his peace making efforts, should give us cause to worry. Here is how she puts it in a cross-currents article: “…he (President Bush) is a “peacemaker”? G-d forbid he should actually turn out to be what they wish and hope”
I’m sure that Mrs. Katz is not opposed to peace. Only a fool and an idiot would be. That is not what she meant. Peace for our people in the state of Israel should be an imperative… a goal no matter what side of the political line you are on. The only question is how to achieve a real one.
In my view the only way the process can even begin is if an organization like Hamas is destroyed. Fundamentalist Muslim organizations like that are committed by their religious ideals to the total destruction of the Jewish State by any means necessary. To them a suicide mission toward that goal is considered a very high value, worthy of an immediate reward in paradise.
Another primary obstacle to peace is Iran or any other state that has as its religious mandate the fundamentalist Islamist views of a Hamas. For that matter, one must seriously consider the possibility that Pakistan may soon join the brotherhood of nations aligned to destroy any Jewish dominance over ‘holy Muslim land’.
So… anything short of total victory over those forces means that there can be no real peace process at all. I am therefore opposed to any negociations in Annapolis that will pre-maturely give away any ‘land for peace’. Because any ‘peace’ that will be promised will be undermined...not by the negotiators at Anappolis, but by the Islamists who are really in control over there.
But…
If those religious fanatic forces could be defeated (and I can’t realistically see any way they could) then I believe there could be a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians… even though they hate us. If you take fundamentalist ideals out of the picture, what remains is a realistic option that I’m thoroughly convinced the majority of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to settle for.
Most of them are sick and tired of all the strife caused by their own leaders (but ultimately blamed on the Israelis and the Americans). They would just as soon, however, get on with their lives and build a better future for their children than to continue the way they are now. To that end Israel would need to compromise somewhere along the lines of the Barak plan which is basically Israel’s revealed and already agreed to bottom line position at Camp Davaid eight years ago.
At that point in time the right thing to do will be to negotiate the best settlement we can get.
And this brings me to an article in Ynet that is extremely troubling. It tells us about a directive from a Religious Zionist Rav who I am certain would vehemently disagree with me about the above. Here is what he said:
Rabbi Aharon Trop, head of the Bnei Tzvi Yeshiva in Beit El, and a rising force among West Bank rabbis, has called for mass order refusal following the Annapolis conference. "This is a moral crime raised on a black flag, it justified and even demands order refusal," Trop said.
I certainly agree that this man has a right to his views. But to advocate resisting orders based on the view that it is Assur to give away any land under any condition is a dangerous policy and Rabbi Trop is irresponsible in advocating it.
Such an attitude can only be based on the extremist notions that retaining all parts of Israel is a religious imperative so high, that it trumps the very existence of the State, or even life itself. Once you tell soldiers to go AWOL for any reason you have basically destroyed the armed forces.
Of course there is a time and a place that resisting orders is appropriate. If for example a soldier is ordered to commit a clear violation of Halacha (for non life threatening reasons) or be killed, he is required to be killed. Then going AWOL would be an appropriate response.
If, however, it is for reasons that are not universally accepted as Halacha, except in the religious Zionist circles, then it will do nothing but harm. The dislipline that is required for an army to be effective will be lost. The break down of the command structure of an army means suicide for the nation. And perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths to citizens who would be attacked by an enemy attack left to soldiers who will feel they can decide whether an order is morally acceptable to them.
Rabbi Trop did not say that he is advocating disobeying of orders because Pikuach Nefesh. He is in no position to say that in any case. He is not in the army or in the intelligence community. He therefore has no standing on this issue. All he is entitled to is to say that he is aposed to Annapolis, not to advocate violating any orders in the future.
It is the religious fanaticism in opposing Annapolis that upsets me, not the opposition itself. As I said, I am opposed to it now too. But I am also of the view, as Rav Shach was and Rav Elyashiv is, that a true peace where lives could be saved trumps retaining land every time… as Pikuach Nefesh always does.
I’m sure that Mrs. Katz is not opposed to peace. Only a fool and an idiot would be. That is not what she meant. Peace for our people in the state of Israel should be an imperative… a goal no matter what side of the political line you are on. The only question is how to achieve a real one.
In my view the only way the process can even begin is if an organization like Hamas is destroyed. Fundamentalist Muslim organizations like that are committed by their religious ideals to the total destruction of the Jewish State by any means necessary. To them a suicide mission toward that goal is considered a very high value, worthy of an immediate reward in paradise.
Another primary obstacle to peace is Iran or any other state that has as its religious mandate the fundamentalist Islamist views of a Hamas. For that matter, one must seriously consider the possibility that Pakistan may soon join the brotherhood of nations aligned to destroy any Jewish dominance over ‘holy Muslim land’.
So… anything short of total victory over those forces means that there can be no real peace process at all. I am therefore opposed to any negociations in Annapolis that will pre-maturely give away any ‘land for peace’. Because any ‘peace’ that will be promised will be undermined...not by the negotiators at Anappolis, but by the Islamists who are really in control over there.
But…
If those religious fanatic forces could be defeated (and I can’t realistically see any way they could) then I believe there could be a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians… even though they hate us. If you take fundamentalist ideals out of the picture, what remains is a realistic option that I’m thoroughly convinced the majority of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to settle for.
Most of them are sick and tired of all the strife caused by their own leaders (but ultimately blamed on the Israelis and the Americans). They would just as soon, however, get on with their lives and build a better future for their children than to continue the way they are now. To that end Israel would need to compromise somewhere along the lines of the Barak plan which is basically Israel’s revealed and already agreed to bottom line position at Camp Davaid eight years ago.
At that point in time the right thing to do will be to negotiate the best settlement we can get.
And this brings me to an article in Ynet that is extremely troubling. It tells us about a directive from a Religious Zionist Rav who I am certain would vehemently disagree with me about the above. Here is what he said:
Rabbi Aharon Trop, head of the Bnei Tzvi Yeshiva in Beit El, and a rising force among West Bank rabbis, has called for mass order refusal following the Annapolis conference. "This is a moral crime raised on a black flag, it justified and even demands order refusal," Trop said.
I certainly agree that this man has a right to his views. But to advocate resisting orders based on the view that it is Assur to give away any land under any condition is a dangerous policy and Rabbi Trop is irresponsible in advocating it.
Such an attitude can only be based on the extremist notions that retaining all parts of Israel is a religious imperative so high, that it trumps the very existence of the State, or even life itself. Once you tell soldiers to go AWOL for any reason you have basically destroyed the armed forces.
Of course there is a time and a place that resisting orders is appropriate. If for example a soldier is ordered to commit a clear violation of Halacha (for non life threatening reasons) or be killed, he is required to be killed. Then going AWOL would be an appropriate response.
If, however, it is for reasons that are not universally accepted as Halacha, except in the religious Zionist circles, then it will do nothing but harm. The dislipline that is required for an army to be effective will be lost. The break down of the command structure of an army means suicide for the nation. And perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths to citizens who would be attacked by an enemy attack left to soldiers who will feel they can decide whether an order is morally acceptable to them.
Rabbi Trop did not say that he is advocating disobeying of orders because Pikuach Nefesh. He is in no position to say that in any case. He is not in the army or in the intelligence community. He therefore has no standing on this issue. All he is entitled to is to say that he is aposed to Annapolis, not to advocate violating any orders in the future.
It is the religious fanaticism in opposing Annapolis that upsets me, not the opposition itself. As I said, I am opposed to it now too. But I am also of the view, as Rav Shach was and Rav Elyashiv is, that a true peace where lives could be saved trumps retaining land every time… as Pikuach Nefesh always does.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Justifying the Means to an End
Several years ago there was an incident in Chicago involving a religious Jew who was laundering money for the Colombian drug cartel. He was a family man and nominally Lubavitch. He was eventually caught and was put into the witness protection program in exchange for his testimony against the Columbian drug dealers. It also cost him his marriage. This religious Lubavitcher did not see anything wrong with what he was doing. His only problem was getting caught.
Today we once again have a money laundering scheme. Only this time it is higher up the Lubavitch ladder.
From a Jewish Telegraphic Agency news release:
Israeli police arrested the leader of the Young Chabad movement. Yosef Aharonov and three others are accused of embezzlement, tax evasion and money laundering. The arrests and a Nov. 13 raid on the community of Kfar Chabad follow an eight-month investigation by the Israel Tax Authority and the Central District Fraud Squad.
Arkady Gaydamak, an Israeli-Russian billionaire and a potential Jerusalem mayoral candidate, is accused of donating $256,000 to the money-laundering facilities allegedly run out of Kfar Chabad, according to Israel's Channel 10. He and other prominent businessmen are currently under investigation.
Young Chabad, also known as Lubavitch Youth, is a nonprofit organization and one of the more prominent Chabad institutions in Israel. It has a budget of about $7.7 million a year, including allocations from the Israeli government.
One of the things that have always bothered me about how Chabad operates is that they subscribe to the belief that the ends justify the means. I was told of this many decades ago (in the early seventies) by a close friend who was then a Chabad Shaliach in a major metropolitan city. He told me that the purpose for Chabad Shiluchim…the emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe… was to reach out to their non religious brethren. In trying to achieve this, they would do what ever it took… using any means necessary, even if the means were questionable. The goal was the thing. The means… were purely incidental. If one could achieve making someone religious, it was worth doing whatever worked!
The example he used was the State of Israel. He said that Chabad realized that most American Jews were very pro Israel. And back in the seventies there was hardly any divisiveness about that. If you were a non Charedi Jew back then, you automatically supported the State and the Prime Minister. Israeli leaders and their policies were never questioned..
But, like many ultra- Orthodox Jews, Chabad was of the mentality that the secular State and its secular leaders were anti Torah and privately they were very condemning of the state, its founders, and its leaders. At that time Golda Meir was the Prime Minister. Needless to say she was vilified along with other secular Zionist leaders by virtually all Ultra Orthodox Jews. Chabad was no exception. But their criticism was not well known outside their own circles. Their public relations machine would speak very proudly of Golda Meir as though she was the heroic figure that most of the non- Ultra Orthodox world thought her to be. In other words they lied.
But they believed that to lie was permissible because that would win people over. My friend the Shaliach then told me that once they won over a fellow Jew to Chabad, he would eventually be trusted with the truth. ‘Why should that be a problem?’ my friend asked me. ‘As long as the goal was reached, who cares if it was a lie that got them there.
Apparently this ‘ends justifying the means’ approach does not only apply to Kiruv. It applies to other areas as well. Like fundraising. As long as one does not get caught why not launder money for a criminal? The money will be used for good purposes. Who will get hurt? Tax evasion… embezzlement… no biggie. They need the money for all their good works!
It should be noted that this organization is not an extremist one in Lubavitch. It is very mainstream and very prominent.
Officials at Chabad say:
"Clearly, every individual is instructed by the Torah to uphold the laws of his/her land, and this is, of course, a basic principle of Chabad Lubavitch operations. We are confident, therefore, that the authorities will receive full cooperation in their efforts and that, ultimately, the results will be satisfactory. "
There does seem to be a pattern. The Shaliach’s testimony to me about legitimizing falsehood… the Lubavitch money launderer for the Colombian drug cartel… and now this new money laundering scheme in Israel. Of course each these can be explained away: The Chicago drug money launderer was not acting on Lubavitch principles but rather on his own lack of them… The Shaliach’s testimony about Chabad’s modus operandi in outreach was not truly representative of Chabad… and the current accusations have yet to be proven. All true.
Time will tell if those charged are truly guilty. But after a lengthy government investigation and now these arrests, I’d like to know what possible explanation they can give about these accusations that will exonerate them? …other than ‘the ends justified the means’. I don’t think that will work very well as a legal defense though. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Today we once again have a money laundering scheme. Only this time it is higher up the Lubavitch ladder.
From a Jewish Telegraphic Agency news release:
Israeli police arrested the leader of the Young Chabad movement. Yosef Aharonov and three others are accused of embezzlement, tax evasion and money laundering. The arrests and a Nov. 13 raid on the community of Kfar Chabad follow an eight-month investigation by the Israel Tax Authority and the Central District Fraud Squad.
Arkady Gaydamak, an Israeli-Russian billionaire and a potential Jerusalem mayoral candidate, is accused of donating $256,000 to the money-laundering facilities allegedly run out of Kfar Chabad, according to Israel's Channel 10. He and other prominent businessmen are currently under investigation.
Young Chabad, also known as Lubavitch Youth, is a nonprofit organization and one of the more prominent Chabad institutions in Israel. It has a budget of about $7.7 million a year, including allocations from the Israeli government.
One of the things that have always bothered me about how Chabad operates is that they subscribe to the belief that the ends justify the means. I was told of this many decades ago (in the early seventies) by a close friend who was then a Chabad Shaliach in a major metropolitan city. He told me that the purpose for Chabad Shiluchim…the emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe… was to reach out to their non religious brethren. In trying to achieve this, they would do what ever it took… using any means necessary, even if the means were questionable. The goal was the thing. The means… were purely incidental. If one could achieve making someone religious, it was worth doing whatever worked!
The example he used was the State of Israel. He said that Chabad realized that most American Jews were very pro Israel. And back in the seventies there was hardly any divisiveness about that. If you were a non Charedi Jew back then, you automatically supported the State and the Prime Minister. Israeli leaders and their policies were never questioned..
But, like many ultra- Orthodox Jews, Chabad was of the mentality that the secular State and its secular leaders were anti Torah and privately they were very condemning of the state, its founders, and its leaders. At that time Golda Meir was the Prime Minister. Needless to say she was vilified along with other secular Zionist leaders by virtually all Ultra Orthodox Jews. Chabad was no exception. But their criticism was not well known outside their own circles. Their public relations machine would speak very proudly of Golda Meir as though she was the heroic figure that most of the non- Ultra Orthodox world thought her to be. In other words they lied.
But they believed that to lie was permissible because that would win people over. My friend the Shaliach then told me that once they won over a fellow Jew to Chabad, he would eventually be trusted with the truth. ‘Why should that be a problem?’ my friend asked me. ‘As long as the goal was reached, who cares if it was a lie that got them there.
Apparently this ‘ends justifying the means’ approach does not only apply to Kiruv. It applies to other areas as well. Like fundraising. As long as one does not get caught why not launder money for a criminal? The money will be used for good purposes. Who will get hurt? Tax evasion… embezzlement… no biggie. They need the money for all their good works!
It should be noted that this organization is not an extremist one in Lubavitch. It is very mainstream and very prominent.
Officials at Chabad say:
"Clearly, every individual is instructed by the Torah to uphold the laws of his/her land, and this is, of course, a basic principle of Chabad Lubavitch operations. We are confident, therefore, that the authorities will receive full cooperation in their efforts and that, ultimately, the results will be satisfactory. "
There does seem to be a pattern. The Shaliach’s testimony to me about legitimizing falsehood… the Lubavitch money launderer for the Colombian drug cartel… and now this new money laundering scheme in Israel. Of course each these can be explained away: The Chicago drug money launderer was not acting on Lubavitch principles but rather on his own lack of them… The Shaliach’s testimony about Chabad’s modus operandi in outreach was not truly representative of Chabad… and the current accusations have yet to be proven. All true.
Time will tell if those charged are truly guilty. But after a lengthy government investigation and now these arrests, I’d like to know what possible explanation they can give about these accusations that will exonerate them? …other than ‘the ends justified the means’. I don’t think that will work very well as a legal defense though. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Overly Modest Women
No the woman in the photo is not a Muslim. She is Jewish. And very Tzanua… modest! We finally have women wearing Burkas. For those who don’t know what that is think... those black clad fully covered women of Iran or Afghanistan. The typical fundementalist Muslim woman in those countries cover themselves up from head to toe in what amounts to a tent. But one picture is worth a thousand words. All you have to do is look at the picture accompanying this post of a religious Jewish woman taking a stroll in the streets of Jerusalem.Lest anyone think that I believe that this is the wave of the future, I fully realize that this particular woman’s clothing style is not about to catch on widely with the observant public any time soon. But it does tell me that all the ultra Tznius talk coming out of Charedi Rabbaim in Israel is catching on with some who are now taking it to an extreme.
There are women out there who have been so indoctrinated by this type of talk that they fear that any type of clothing at all that makes a woman look…well... like a woman, is actually forbidden by Halacha to wear. The idea behind this type of clothing is to hide her physical form. When one particular woman was asked by a reporter why she wanted to wear this type of clothing she answered that, as a religious woman, she did not want men to stare at her so she covers up. It did not occur to her that this is not what the Torah meant for her to do.
This is surely a function of not knowing the Halacha and taking what Rabbanim have said and done recently in matters of Tznius to an extreme. But it is also a function of not getting properly educated in the Halachos and Hashkafos of Tznius. Relying on Psak and terse explanations does not substitute for education. Instead it can sometimes result some bizarre behavior. I doubt that there is a Posek in the world that says a woman is not allowed to wear clothing that shows her figure at all.
It is so ironic that right in the middle of all the attention to sex crimes within Orthodox world in the media we find a story like this…. where Tznius is taken from the sublime to the ridiculous. These women are as serious as a heart attack in taking the Halacha of Tznius to such extremes.
What ever happened to normalcy?
In theory there should be an exact modesty standard for all segments of the Torah observant community. But I understand that each community has its own Halachic interpretation of that… each with their own Poskim. Some communities are more stringent, others are more lenient. But there ought to be some common sense out there even for the most stringent of communities. There is such a thing as too Tznius. The photo above demonstrates that.
Even in those communities whose Poskim take Tznius to severe standards, there ought to be a point where one can go too far. It can only bring ridicule to Judaism if this were pointed out as any kind of legitimate standard. The Poskim of that community ought to stop it.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Patting Ourselves on the Back
I am a bit dismayed by an article appearing in cross-currents written by Agudah spokesman, Rabbi Avi Shafran. As most people know by now he is a man I admire and respect …and generally agree with.
I am dismayed not because I disagree with his premise. I agree with it. But I am disappointed with his seemingly almost casual dismissal of a serious problem: Sex abuse in the Torah world. To be fair he acknowledges its existence and that one must have compassion for victims. But in my view he vastly understates the extent of the problem. This is indicated by a statement like the following: ‘the Torah is transformative, that human inclinations are harnessed and controlled by Torah-life and Torah-study .’
While true, this does not address the fact that there is a real problem. Not everyone who adheres to the Torah becomes transformed and behaves properly. Often one gives in to forbidden abnormal sexual urges. And we can in some cases end up with an Avreimal Mondrowitz, a Frum Jew about to be extradited for unspeakable sex crimes against children.
If I understand the thrust of Rabbi Shafran’s article, he is saying that often people use studies like the recent one reported in the Jewish Week (and commented about here) as a means to bash Torah observance. And he’s right about that. No one should use a study indicating that there is sexual abuse in the Torah world to show that there is something inherently wrong in behavior that the Torah mandates for us.
And he goes on to show that the study does not accurately represent the Torah world because the statistical sample is not randomized enough. That’s true. He also points out that because of the way the sample was taken it is far more likely that it is skewed to increase the percentage of those abused. Also true.
But what Rabbi Shafran fails to do is to show the urgency of a problem that does exist in far greater numbers that we have here-to-fore been willing to admit. Do we need to rise to the level of the world at large to see there is a problem? If only 10 percent of Orthodox women are sexually abused versus the 25 percent of the general population, is that something to cheer about? Is that not such a great cause of concern for us?! ...No big deal?!
The study may not necessarily prove that Orthodox women are abused in the same proportion that the general populace, but it doesn’t disprove it either. What it does show is that there are a great number of Orthodox women who are or have been sexually abused.
What makes matters worse… far worse is that Rabbi Shafran's article comes out at precisely the same time as a sexual predator of unprecedented proportion has just been arrested and may finally be brought to justice! This is not the time to play this matter down and talk about how Torah adherence prevents it… or that ‘ the Torah-observant population is greatly underrepresented in the realms of societal ills like rape, AIDS, prostitution and marital infidelity that affect their less “repressed” neighbors.’
This is no time for triumphalism. Our numbers may be lower… significantly lower… but the indication is that there are probably a greater number of those ills in the Torah world today than at any other time in the past. Can there even be any serious question about that?
The reaction to that report should not be to get into a defensive mode about Torah Judaism. WE should instead pay attention to the questions it raises …and to the fact that the Torah world has in the past tried to avoid the bad publicity about it and has therefore shirked its duty to its victims… which has more than likely resulted in more victims. And thereby more perpetrators.
To refer to victims reports as ‘anecdotal evidence of Orthodox wrongdoings’ is to make it sound like all we have is a bunch of accusers with no substantial evidence. How much evidence is it going to take to see that this is a real problem in the Torah world. It is serious and more prevalent that was commonly thought… and it has nothing to do with level of Torah observance of the perpetrators.
The fact is that abnormal sexual proclivities are not a function of religious upbringing. They are a form of mental illness. And Orthodoxy is no more immune from that than any other group. The Torah world deserves to be protected from those who cannot control forbidden urges and will go to great lengths to seek out the objects of their fantasies and act upon them. The protection process demands that we first acknowledge there is a serious problem and never again sweep accusations under the rug! …And then deal with it forcefully and unapologetically.
I do not accuse Rabbi Shafran of insensitivity on his part, Indeed, I know him to be a very compassionate individual. Nor do I believe he is purposely trying to mislead anyone with his essay. His intent is to defend the Torah lifestyle. And as I said I agree with him about that. But the unintended effect of his essay is one of near denial and complacency.
Without the context of what’s been going on in the Torah world with respect to sex crimes, anyone reading his article will come away thinking there are no real problems going on in the Torah world with respect to sex crimes. And that all the negative press on the subject is a function of those who are anti Torah.
But there are real problems! …Whether it is in a report by a group of Orthodox women who came forward in a survey on sexual abuse… or that of a modern Orthodox youth leader convicted of sex crimes… or a Charedi Yeshiva High school Rebbe …or a formerly respected Chasidic psychologist who turned out to be one of the vilest sexual predators on earth.
That is what we ought to be paying attention to and not pat ourselves on the back so much.
I am dismayed not because I disagree with his premise. I agree with it. But I am disappointed with his seemingly almost casual dismissal of a serious problem: Sex abuse in the Torah world. To be fair he acknowledges its existence and that one must have compassion for victims. But in my view he vastly understates the extent of the problem. This is indicated by a statement like the following: ‘the Torah is transformative, that human inclinations are harnessed and controlled by Torah-life and Torah-study .’
While true, this does not address the fact that there is a real problem. Not everyone who adheres to the Torah becomes transformed and behaves properly. Often one gives in to forbidden abnormal sexual urges. And we can in some cases end up with an Avreimal Mondrowitz, a Frum Jew about to be extradited for unspeakable sex crimes against children.
If I understand the thrust of Rabbi Shafran’s article, he is saying that often people use studies like the recent one reported in the Jewish Week (and commented about here) as a means to bash Torah observance. And he’s right about that. No one should use a study indicating that there is sexual abuse in the Torah world to show that there is something inherently wrong in behavior that the Torah mandates for us.
And he goes on to show that the study does not accurately represent the Torah world because the statistical sample is not randomized enough. That’s true. He also points out that because of the way the sample was taken it is far more likely that it is skewed to increase the percentage of those abused. Also true.
But what Rabbi Shafran fails to do is to show the urgency of a problem that does exist in far greater numbers that we have here-to-fore been willing to admit. Do we need to rise to the level of the world at large to see there is a problem? If only 10 percent of Orthodox women are sexually abused versus the 25 percent of the general population, is that something to cheer about? Is that not such a great cause of concern for us?! ...No big deal?!
The study may not necessarily prove that Orthodox women are abused in the same proportion that the general populace, but it doesn’t disprove it either. What it does show is that there are a great number of Orthodox women who are or have been sexually abused.
What makes matters worse… far worse is that Rabbi Shafran's article comes out at precisely the same time as a sexual predator of unprecedented proportion has just been arrested and may finally be brought to justice! This is not the time to play this matter down and talk about how Torah adherence prevents it… or that ‘ the Torah-observant population is greatly underrepresented in the realms of societal ills like rape, AIDS, prostitution and marital infidelity that affect their less “repressed” neighbors.’
This is no time for triumphalism. Our numbers may be lower… significantly lower… but the indication is that there are probably a greater number of those ills in the Torah world today than at any other time in the past. Can there even be any serious question about that?
The reaction to that report should not be to get into a defensive mode about Torah Judaism. WE should instead pay attention to the questions it raises …and to the fact that the Torah world has in the past tried to avoid the bad publicity about it and has therefore shirked its duty to its victims… which has more than likely resulted in more victims. And thereby more perpetrators.
To refer to victims reports as ‘anecdotal evidence of Orthodox wrongdoings’ is to make it sound like all we have is a bunch of accusers with no substantial evidence. How much evidence is it going to take to see that this is a real problem in the Torah world. It is serious and more prevalent that was commonly thought… and it has nothing to do with level of Torah observance of the perpetrators.
The fact is that abnormal sexual proclivities are not a function of religious upbringing. They are a form of mental illness. And Orthodoxy is no more immune from that than any other group. The Torah world deserves to be protected from those who cannot control forbidden urges and will go to great lengths to seek out the objects of their fantasies and act upon them. The protection process demands that we first acknowledge there is a serious problem and never again sweep accusations under the rug! …And then deal with it forcefully and unapologetically.
I do not accuse Rabbi Shafran of insensitivity on his part, Indeed, I know him to be a very compassionate individual. Nor do I believe he is purposely trying to mislead anyone with his essay. His intent is to defend the Torah lifestyle. And as I said I agree with him about that. But the unintended effect of his essay is one of near denial and complacency.
Without the context of what’s been going on in the Torah world with respect to sex crimes, anyone reading his article will come away thinking there are no real problems going on in the Torah world with respect to sex crimes. And that all the negative press on the subject is a function of those who are anti Torah.
But there are real problems! …Whether it is in a report by a group of Orthodox women who came forward in a survey on sexual abuse… or that of a modern Orthodox youth leader convicted of sex crimes… or a Charedi Yeshiva High school Rebbe …or a formerly respected Chasidic psychologist who turned out to be one of the vilest sexual predators on earth.
That is what we ought to be paying attention to and not pat ourselves on the back so much.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Of Outreach, Achdus, and Heresy
The Annual Agudah convention is in progress now. The theme this year is Kiruv… outreach to the larger Jewish community. I’m not sure how they are going to address that issue but upon looking at the makeup of their speaker list and the Kiruv Organizations, I am once again disappointed by Agudah. They they did not include what is perhaps the only Kiruv organization that deals with high school teenagers, NCSY. I of course realize that NCSY is not a member of Agudah and is in fact a subsidiary of the OU… their crowning jewel in fact.
But why should that have prevented them from including speakers from this wonderful and highly successful organization? What better way to show Achdus than including a Kiruv group that has in fact been Mekarev many of Agudah’s own membership. In fact, some of its biggest Askanim, people who are at the highest levels of lay leadership in Agudah type organizations started out in NCSY. People like my good friend Rabbi Jack Rajchenbach who recently proudly and publicly acknowledged that at an NCSY banquet.
As has been the case in many recent events, I am disappointed, but not suprised. To paraphrase Abba Eban, Agudah never misses and opportunity to miss an opportunity. Every time there is an opportunity to show some Achdus with their modern Orthodox brothers, they turn it down.
I am also curious how they will address another very important Kiruv issue. What approach does one take in outreach to Jewish college youth? Most of college students believe in an ancient universe and even evolution. Considering the fact that only fundamentalist/literalist views on creation and the age of the universe are now acceptable, what do they tell them? Is there even a snowball’s chance of not being laughed out of the room, when the answer to the question about… say dinosaurs… is that they were created as skeletons already buried in the earth less than six thousand years ago?
When the books by Rabbi Slifkin were banned by Rav Elyashiv, one of the reasons given was that belief in an ancient universe is heresy… Kiruv professionals, even right wing ones involved on college campuses were stopped in their tracks! Up to that point, they were telling college youth that belief in an ancient universe was compatible with Judaism. How do they deal with that now? Will Agudah have any real answers that will satisfy these college students?
I will never forget Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky response to the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books: He is a Kiruv professional that used those books among others to show that Judaism is perfectly compatible with beliefs in an ancient universe.
After the ban, he stated something to the effect he had to do Teshuva for doing that. And then he declared that if he were Rabbi Slifkin, he would get on his hands and knees begging Rav Elyashiv for ways to do Teshuva for writing those books… not as Rabbi Slifkin has done. Rabbi Slifkin attempted to get a meeting with Rav Elyashiv to try and explain his books. And upon whom he relied on for his Hashkafos e.g. Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, among others.
Is Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky’s attitude going to be the approach of Agudah at this convention? Is it even going to be part of the discussion there? There is a lot at stake here. A lot depends on how these questions are dealt with. Are they going to declare their own ban on using allegorical interpretations of the six days of creation? Or will they finally have the courage to publicly disagree with R. Elyashiv’s view and say that his opinion is not the only legitimate one.
Well see. But I’m not going to hold my breath for a satisfactory outcome.
But why should that have prevented them from including speakers from this wonderful and highly successful organization? What better way to show Achdus than including a Kiruv group that has in fact been Mekarev many of Agudah’s own membership. In fact, some of its biggest Askanim, people who are at the highest levels of lay leadership in Agudah type organizations started out in NCSY. People like my good friend Rabbi Jack Rajchenbach who recently proudly and publicly acknowledged that at an NCSY banquet.
As has been the case in many recent events, I am disappointed, but not suprised. To paraphrase Abba Eban, Agudah never misses and opportunity to miss an opportunity. Every time there is an opportunity to show some Achdus with their modern Orthodox brothers, they turn it down.
I am also curious how they will address another very important Kiruv issue. What approach does one take in outreach to Jewish college youth? Most of college students believe in an ancient universe and even evolution. Considering the fact that only fundamentalist/literalist views on creation and the age of the universe are now acceptable, what do they tell them? Is there even a snowball’s chance of not being laughed out of the room, when the answer to the question about… say dinosaurs… is that they were created as skeletons already buried in the earth less than six thousand years ago?
When the books by Rabbi Slifkin were banned by Rav Elyashiv, one of the reasons given was that belief in an ancient universe is heresy… Kiruv professionals, even right wing ones involved on college campuses were stopped in their tracks! Up to that point, they were telling college youth that belief in an ancient universe was compatible with Judaism. How do they deal with that now? Will Agudah have any real answers that will satisfy these college students?
I will never forget Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky response to the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books: He is a Kiruv professional that used those books among others to show that Judaism is perfectly compatible with beliefs in an ancient universe.
After the ban, he stated something to the effect he had to do Teshuva for doing that. And then he declared that if he were Rabbi Slifkin, he would get on his hands and knees begging Rav Elyashiv for ways to do Teshuva for writing those books… not as Rabbi Slifkin has done. Rabbi Slifkin attempted to get a meeting with Rav Elyashiv to try and explain his books. And upon whom he relied on for his Hashkafos e.g. Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, among others.
Is Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky’s attitude going to be the approach of Agudah at this convention? Is it even going to be part of the discussion there? There is a lot at stake here. A lot depends on how these questions are dealt with. Are they going to declare their own ban on using allegorical interpretations of the six days of creation? Or will they finally have the courage to publicly disagree with R. Elyashiv’s view and say that his opinion is not the only legitimate one.
Well see. But I’m not going to hold my breath for a satisfactory outcome.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Is Thanksgiving Kosher?
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde is an up and coming and shining light on the modern American Orthodox scene. He was ordained by Yeshiva University and has Yorah -Yorah... Yadin-Yadin. He is a Professor of Law at Emory University, founding rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta and a member Dayan of the Beth Din of America (RCA), headed by Av Beis Din HaRav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, also the Av Beth Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Council (CRC).
Many have asked who the Gedolim of Modern Orthodoxy are. I don’t know about Gedolim… but the names most commonly mentioned as rabbinic leaders are Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Aaron Lichtenstein. Deservedly so. I would add the name of Rabbi Michael J. Broyde to that list. He is quite brilliant and quite knowledgeable in Torah as well as Mada.
Several years ago he wrote an article about Thanksgiving. Below are his concluding comments which summerizes the article. The full article is well worth the read and has been linked by bloggers on past Thanksgivings. I am pleased to do so here on this, the day of Thanksgiving, 2007. Here now... Rabbi Broyde's words:
Three basic approaches are taken by contemporary decisors (poskim) on the question of celebrating Thanksgiving. Some rule that Thanksgiving is not a Gentile holiday, but yet limit "celebration." They would, apparently, permit eating a turkey meal. Others prohibit any form of involvement in Thanksgiving, as they rule it a Gentile holiday. Yet others view the day no different from Independence Day and allow any celebration appropriate for a secular observance.
Indeed, there remains a basic dispute that permeates this review and divide contemporary American halachic authorities of the last seventy five years. The relevant issue is whether it is appropriate to distinguish between "secular society", "Gentile society" and "idol-worshiping society" in modern American culture. The validity of this distinction -- which was not generally made by the decisors of Eastern Europe two hundred years ago for the society of that time and place -- is extremely relevant to a broad variety of halachic issues related to contemporary American society.
Like many areas of Jewish law where there is a diversity of legitimate approaches, individuals should follow the practices of their community, family or rabbi, all-the-while respecting and accepting as halachicly permissible other community's practices. It is for the ability to respect and accept as legitimate the conduct of fellow observant Jews -- sanctioned by rabbinic authority -- that true thanksgiving to the Almighty is needed.
This article has so far avoided any discussion of normative halacha. Such cannot, however, be avoided, at least in a conclusion. It is my opinion that this article clearly establishes that: (1) Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with secular origins; (2) while some people celebrate Thanksgiving with religious rituals, the vast majority of Americans do not; (3) halacha permits one to celebrate secular holidays, so long as one avoids doing so with people who celebrate them through religious worship and (4) so long as one avoids giving the celebration of Thanksgiving the appearance of a religious rite (either by occasionally missing a year or in some other manner making it clear that this is not a religious duty) the technical problems raised by Rabbi Feinstein and others are inapplicable.
Thus, halacha law permits one to have a private Thanksgiving celebration with one's Jewish or secular friends and family. For reasons related to citizenship and the gratitude we feel towards the United States government, I would even suggest that such conduct is wise and proper.
It has been recounted that some marking of Thanksgiving day was the practice of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, thus adding force to our custom of noting the day in some manner.
Elsewhere in this article it is recounted that Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik would reschedule shiur on Thanksgiving day, so that shiur started earlier, and ended earlier, allowing the celebration of Thanksgiving. It is important to note the Torah study was not canceled, or even curtailed. Rather, the day was rearranged to allow for a full compliment of Torah, hand in hand with the requisite "civil celebrations." That too is an important lesson in how we should mark Thanksgiving.
Torah learning must be an integral part of what we do, and how we function. Sometimes, because of the needs of the times or our duties as citizens, we undertake tasks that appear to conflict with our need to study and learn Torah. But yet we must continue to learn and study. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik did not cancel shiur on Thanksgiving. We, too, should not forget that lesson. Torah study must go on.
Many have asked who the Gedolim of Modern Orthodoxy are. I don’t know about Gedolim… but the names most commonly mentioned as rabbinic leaders are Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Aaron Lichtenstein. Deservedly so. I would add the name of Rabbi Michael J. Broyde to that list. He is quite brilliant and quite knowledgeable in Torah as well as Mada.
Several years ago he wrote an article about Thanksgiving. Below are his concluding comments which summerizes the article. The full article is well worth the read and has been linked by bloggers on past Thanksgivings. I am pleased to do so here on this, the day of Thanksgiving, 2007. Here now... Rabbi Broyde's words:
Three basic approaches are taken by contemporary decisors (poskim) on the question of celebrating Thanksgiving. Some rule that Thanksgiving is not a Gentile holiday, but yet limit "celebration." They would, apparently, permit eating a turkey meal. Others prohibit any form of involvement in Thanksgiving, as they rule it a Gentile holiday. Yet others view the day no different from Independence Day and allow any celebration appropriate for a secular observance.
Indeed, there remains a basic dispute that permeates this review and divide contemporary American halachic authorities of the last seventy five years. The relevant issue is whether it is appropriate to distinguish between "secular society", "Gentile society" and "idol-worshiping society" in modern American culture. The validity of this distinction -- which was not generally made by the decisors of Eastern Europe two hundred years ago for the society of that time and place -- is extremely relevant to a broad variety of halachic issues related to contemporary American society.
Like many areas of Jewish law where there is a diversity of legitimate approaches, individuals should follow the practices of their community, family or rabbi, all-the-while respecting and accepting as halachicly permissible other community's practices. It is for the ability to respect and accept as legitimate the conduct of fellow observant Jews -- sanctioned by rabbinic authority -- that true thanksgiving to the Almighty is needed.
This article has so far avoided any discussion of normative halacha. Such cannot, however, be avoided, at least in a conclusion. It is my opinion that this article clearly establishes that: (1) Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with secular origins; (2) while some people celebrate Thanksgiving with religious rituals, the vast majority of Americans do not; (3) halacha permits one to celebrate secular holidays, so long as one avoids doing so with people who celebrate them through religious worship and (4) so long as one avoids giving the celebration of Thanksgiving the appearance of a religious rite (either by occasionally missing a year or in some other manner making it clear that this is not a religious duty) the technical problems raised by Rabbi Feinstein and others are inapplicable.
Thus, halacha law permits one to have a private Thanksgiving celebration with one's Jewish or secular friends and family. For reasons related to citizenship and the gratitude we feel towards the United States government, I would even suggest that such conduct is wise and proper.
It has been recounted that some marking of Thanksgiving day was the practice of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, thus adding force to our custom of noting the day in some manner.
Elsewhere in this article it is recounted that Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik would reschedule shiur on Thanksgiving day, so that shiur started earlier, and ended earlier, allowing the celebration of Thanksgiving. It is important to note the Torah study was not canceled, or even curtailed. Rather, the day was rearranged to allow for a full compliment of Torah, hand in hand with the requisite "civil celebrations." That too is an important lesson in how we should mark Thanksgiving.
Torah learning must be an integral part of what we do, and how we function. Sometimes, because of the needs of the times or our duties as citizens, we undertake tasks that appear to conflict with our need to study and learn Torah. But yet we must continue to learn and study. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik did not cancel shiur on Thanksgiving. We, too, should not forget that lesson. Torah study must go on.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Not What We Hoped For, But...
We received the news on Friday, while we were in St. Louis. It was in the form of a phone call from my daughter Tova.My four year old grandson, Reuven, has just had his three month post chemo bone scan and MRI. The results are not what we hoped for. There were new tumors on one of his lungs. One larger ‘penny’ sized one and two smaller ones. The cancer has returned …and very quickly.
Though the doctors are still hopeful… the news is still very hard for our family to take. Obviously this is serious cause for concern. We were all praying and hoping that the results would show that he is still in remission. But… so soon after the chemotherapy, that is unfortunately not the case. The cancer is of the same type of which he was originally diagnosed, Ewing's Sarcoma.
The good news is that it has not spread beyond his lung. His bones are free any trace of cancer. And so is every other part of his body. Doctors tell us that this is a good sign and that additional treatment will not be as long term. But it will be harsh. To look at him now… so healthy, so happy, and so full of life is to heave a great internal cry. It is just too painful.
Ever since Reuven completed his treatments, he has been thriving. He has grown his hair back and has filled out from the ‘skeletal look’ he had during and immediately post treatment. I never saw such a contented child. So well behaved. So utterly happy to be alive and back to a normal routine.
Although the treatments were rough on Reuven, for the most part his spirit was never broken during his nearly year long treatment - including the limb saving surgery.
He has re-learned to walk and his gait is normal. One cannot tell he ever had any surgery. But when he runs, there is a slightly noticeable limp, not that it slows him down or dampens his enthusiasm. His progress was remarkable. Physically, mentally, and spiritually.
He overcame his travails with a grace rarely found in adults let alone little children. His face literally shines now.
My daughter and son-in-law were finally able to go back to a normal life. A life no longer dominated by Reuven’s chemotherapy treatment.
But that was short lived.
We spent Shabbos in St. Louis. Looking at Reuven’s radiant face brought instant tears to my eyes. But, I held them back. I could not…would not… dampen his spirit.
My daughter and son in law are remarkable. My son is law Neil is a pillar of strength as is my daughter Tova. They are determined to do what’s necessary to try and overcome this life threatening disease.
On Monday, Neil and Tova consulted with Dr. Julie Kantor Reuven’s pediatric oncologist. This is the treatment plan. Reuven will have to undergo a new very harsh chemotherapy. This one is so strong that it will destroy his bone marrow.
Reuven will first have his marrow checked to see if it is cancer free which doctors say has a very high degree of probability. If it is proven cancer free, then starting next Monday and continuing through Friday, Reuven will have a two hour daily outpatient IV chemotherapy session. Then he will have two weeks off. His immune system will again be weakened as it was in the last treatment, but not as badly. It will still, however, require monitoring for infections.
After this first phase of treatment, he will be scanned to see if the tumors have been reduced or at least not spread or grown. If the treatment has been affective, he will repeat the cycle.
After the second phase, if the chemotherapy continues to be affective, he will have his bone marrow removed and stored. Then he will hospitalized and have a month long chemotherapy session so harsh that his remaining bone marrow will be destroyed. He will then have his stored bone marrow transplanted. The treatment will at some point require radiation and possibly surgery to remove the larger tumor.
During his 30 day treatment his susceptibility to infection will be so high that he will not be permitted to leave his room at all. Visitors will be limited and great care will be taken to insure that they do not have any colds or other common ailments which could prove very harmful to Reuven.
If all goes well he will hopefully go back into remission and eventually be cured. That is where prayer comes in. This entire process depends on each step being successful before going on to the next. And I pray that they will.
Please Daven for Reuven ben Tova Chaya.
Aiding and Abetting a Child Molester
The outrage and the Chilul HaShem continues. So soon after reading an article describing in detail the horrible monster that Avreimal Modrowitz is… I read a story in the media that contains the following lines:
Nevertheless, Hynes did not pursue the case until this year. Critics charge that he was influenced by a group of Orthodox rabbis who informally advise him.
"I'm certain of that," Lesher told JTA. "We know that the Orthodox community didn't want this case pursued. Even today I'm experiencing a lot of reluctance from rabbis familiar with the case."
Charles Hynes is the Brooklyn district attorney who has filed for extradition of Avreimal Mondrowitz. Michael Lesher is the attorney who represents six of his victims.
It is inconceivable to me that there is an Orthodox Rabbi alive today that has even the slightest bit of compassion for a man that Rabbi Avigdor Miller called a ‘Hitler’.
Yet... there are. On this day when so much is known about this human piece of garbage there are still Rabbis that are reluctant to give this man up. It makes no sense whatsoever.
This is not a case where one fellow just popped up out of the woodwork with accusations about a respected community figure. There are dozens of victims who have testified to what he did. And those victims say there are probably hundreds more that he abused. Jews and non Jews.
He has used his cunning to entice his victims and then committed unspeakable acts with them. He has deceived rabbis, community figures, and parents about his many credentials and his religiosity… All phony. He has even made a business of selling fraudulent degrees to people. He has been caught with magazines that contain images of violent child pornography. And has been living free for over twenty years in the process.
In my view, whoever these rabbis are, they ought to be forced to sit down and listen to every gory detail of this man’s crimes directly from his victims and their families. Let them imagine it was happening to their own children! Let them look at the porno magazines that were confiscated from this guy. After that let them be arrested for being accomplices after the fact. By protecting him and thwarting attempts to arrest, extradite, and prosecute him they have aided and abetted his crime.
I don’t understand the moral difference between these rabbis and the German people who stood by and did nothing while Jews were tortured and sent to the gas chambers by their fellow Nazi citizens. They stood idly by and let it happen. They looked the other way and did nothing.
Only these rabbis are worse. They not only stand by and let this new ‘Hitler’ do his thing, they actively helped perpetuate the crime by discouraging prosecution! I have no clue how they live with themselves!
If anyone knows which rabbis tried to impede the arrest and prosecution of this Hitler, they ought to make the names public. Let parents in those communities know what their leaders have done to them.
Nevertheless, Hynes did not pursue the case until this year. Critics charge that he was influenced by a group of Orthodox rabbis who informally advise him.
"I'm certain of that," Lesher told JTA. "We know that the Orthodox community didn't want this case pursued. Even today I'm experiencing a lot of reluctance from rabbis familiar with the case."
Charles Hynes is the Brooklyn district attorney who has filed for extradition of Avreimal Mondrowitz. Michael Lesher is the attorney who represents six of his victims.
It is inconceivable to me that there is an Orthodox Rabbi alive today that has even the slightest bit of compassion for a man that Rabbi Avigdor Miller called a ‘Hitler’.
Yet... there are. On this day when so much is known about this human piece of garbage there are still Rabbis that are reluctant to give this man up. It makes no sense whatsoever.
This is not a case where one fellow just popped up out of the woodwork with accusations about a respected community figure. There are dozens of victims who have testified to what he did. And those victims say there are probably hundreds more that he abused. Jews and non Jews.
He has used his cunning to entice his victims and then committed unspeakable acts with them. He has deceived rabbis, community figures, and parents about his many credentials and his religiosity… All phony. He has even made a business of selling fraudulent degrees to people. He has been caught with magazines that contain images of violent child pornography. And has been living free for over twenty years in the process.
In my view, whoever these rabbis are, they ought to be forced to sit down and listen to every gory detail of this man’s crimes directly from his victims and their families. Let them imagine it was happening to their own children! Let them look at the porno magazines that were confiscated from this guy. After that let them be arrested for being accomplices after the fact. By protecting him and thwarting attempts to arrest, extradite, and prosecute him they have aided and abetted his crime.
I don’t understand the moral difference between these rabbis and the German people who stood by and did nothing while Jews were tortured and sent to the gas chambers by their fellow Nazi citizens. They stood idly by and let it happen. They looked the other way and did nothing.
Only these rabbis are worse. They not only stand by and let this new ‘Hitler’ do his thing, they actively helped perpetuate the crime by discouraging prosecution! I have no clue how they live with themselves!
If anyone knows which rabbis tried to impede the arrest and prosecution of this Hitler, they ought to make the names public. Let parents in those communities know what their leaders have done to them.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Kosher Food We Eat
Over the last couple of decades the kosher consumer has probably become familiar with the Rubashkin label. It has fairly wide distribution and acceptance in this country. They have generally produced fine kosher meat products with trustworthy Hechsherim, certified Kosher by major certification agencies such as the OU and KAJ. They are also of course supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agriprocessors has become the largest producer and supplier of kosher meat products in the United States. It is more commonly known by its trade name Rubashkin, which is the family name of the owners. And it is a classic American success story. They have rejuvenated the dying economy of Postville Iowa, a small town in middle America. Rubashkin has also created many jobs for both the local non Jewish community and its own imported Jewish community.
But all is not so rosy as the above picture indicates. Agriprocessors has in the past been accused of mistreating its non Jewish workers. They vigorously denied it and claimed the complaints were made by a few disgruntled workers. But there was at least some evidence of unfair labor practices with non-Jewish workers.
This was the subject if a major news expose a few years ago. The controversy was also the source of the Conservative movement creating something called a Hekhsher Tzedek. The purpose was to eliminate the shabby treatment of its non Jewish workers. Products that were to display this Hekhsher insured that workers were indeed being treated fairly and not subjected to unfair labor practices.
I don’t know what ever became of this initiative. But it does serve to illustrate that in all likelihood, claims of innocence by Agriprocessors are not necessarily factual and that there was at least some validity to claims by various workers.
I have been informed by a source about a post that appeared in Yeshivaworld a few days ago. A new charge has been leveled against Agriprocessors by a group calling themselves the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union. I have no clue who they are or what their agenda is. Although it may very well be to unionize the workers at the plant. Unions generally tend to want all workers to be unionized. Be that as it may, here is what Yeshivaworld says:
Yeshivaworld has received dozens of emails in the last 12 hours telling us that they have received anonymous, automated phone calls telling them that Rubashkin Meat has Mad Cow Disease - amongst other things. Yeshivaworld has learned that these phone calls have been made to thousands & thousands of homes.
This was followed by a reader who took offense at the fact that an outside organization whose motives were not pure would use scare tactics as a means of putting pressure on Rubashkin for their own purposes.
This in turn generated a defensive response from Sholom Rubashkin, a vice president of the company that is both true... and misleading. He claimed they have never had a recall of their raw meat. True. But they did have a recall of some of their processed meat. One that the USDA termed a high health risk!
Now I seriously doubt that Rubashkin’s products have been tainted by Mad Cow desease, although it’s possible. But to defend oneself by misleading statements calls into question the integrity of their entire enterprise.
It is also unfair for Yeshivaworld to present a one sided view of this issue. They should have given the union an opportunity to present theirs.
Here is the way my source put it:
To imply that the USDA has never found reason for a recall is IMNSHO far below the level of honesty I would expect from a kosher food supplier.
I couldn’t agree more!
Agriprocessors has become the largest producer and supplier of kosher meat products in the United States. It is more commonly known by its trade name Rubashkin, which is the family name of the owners. And it is a classic American success story. They have rejuvenated the dying economy of Postville Iowa, a small town in middle America. Rubashkin has also created many jobs for both the local non Jewish community and its own imported Jewish community.
But all is not so rosy as the above picture indicates. Agriprocessors has in the past been accused of mistreating its non Jewish workers. They vigorously denied it and claimed the complaints were made by a few disgruntled workers. But there was at least some evidence of unfair labor practices with non-Jewish workers.
This was the subject if a major news expose a few years ago. The controversy was also the source of the Conservative movement creating something called a Hekhsher Tzedek. The purpose was to eliminate the shabby treatment of its non Jewish workers. Products that were to display this Hekhsher insured that workers were indeed being treated fairly and not subjected to unfair labor practices.
I don’t know what ever became of this initiative. But it does serve to illustrate that in all likelihood, claims of innocence by Agriprocessors are not necessarily factual and that there was at least some validity to claims by various workers.
I have been informed by a source about a post that appeared in Yeshivaworld a few days ago. A new charge has been leveled against Agriprocessors by a group calling themselves the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union. I have no clue who they are or what their agenda is. Although it may very well be to unionize the workers at the plant. Unions generally tend to want all workers to be unionized. Be that as it may, here is what Yeshivaworld says:
Yeshivaworld has received dozens of emails in the last 12 hours telling us that they have received anonymous, automated phone calls telling them that Rubashkin Meat has Mad Cow Disease - amongst other things. Yeshivaworld has learned that these phone calls have been made to thousands & thousands of homes.
This was followed by a reader who took offense at the fact that an outside organization whose motives were not pure would use scare tactics as a means of putting pressure on Rubashkin for their own purposes.
This in turn generated a defensive response from Sholom Rubashkin, a vice president of the company that is both true... and misleading. He claimed they have never had a recall of their raw meat. True. But they did have a recall of some of their processed meat. One that the USDA termed a high health risk!
Now I seriously doubt that Rubashkin’s products have been tainted by Mad Cow desease, although it’s possible. But to defend oneself by misleading statements calls into question the integrity of their entire enterprise.
It is also unfair for Yeshivaworld to present a one sided view of this issue. They should have given the union an opportunity to present theirs.
Here is the way my source put it:
To imply that the USDA has never found reason for a recall is IMNSHO far below the level of honesty I would expect from a kosher food supplier.
I couldn’t agree more!
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Eternal Jewish Family
The concern most strongly driving the controversy is the massive number of Jews from the former
To a smaller extent this is true in the
Additionally there have been many conversions done even by Orthodox rabbis that have come into question. The Rabbanut Beis Din in
The primary concern about some of the RCA conversions is a laxity on the key conversion requirement for the convert to sincerely promise they will observe Mitzvos. EJF was created in part to rectify this by standardizing all Orthodox conversions and requiring a no nonsense acceptance of doing Mitzvos. This was the brainchild of Rabbi Leib Tropper, of Yeshivas Kol Torah in Monsey, a Baal Teshuva Yeshiva.
Rabbi Tropper has managed to gain the participation of many rabbinic leaders of all types including leaders like Rav Elyashiv (by proxy of his representative Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein), Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Rabbi Hershel Shachter, That is how important this issue is viewed and how accepted EJF has become as the vehicle to get this accomplished.
But... Rabbi Tropper also has as a goal of actively seeking out children of non Jewish mothers and placing them in religious Jewish schools with the hope that they will eventually convert. This is not a proper Halachic approach. Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch had written a Teshuva about it a while back. That Teshuva generated some controversy here because it seemed in opposition to a practice employed by NCSY under the authority of Agudah Dayan, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst.
NCSY by its nature will very often have teens participate who are not Halachicly Jewish... but think that they are. Their mothers were converted non-Halachicly by rabbis of non Halachic streams of Judaism.
Rabbi Fuerst based on what he had clearly been told by his Rebbe Rav Moshe Feinstein, has Paskined that NCSY can actively encourage these children to continue participating in NCSY and to seek a proper conversion. Rav Moshe held that by not encouraging these youngsters to convert they would none the less continue believing they were Jewish and seek to marry other Jews That would actually increase inter-marriage in Klal Yisroel.
It is not clear whether Rabbi Sternbuch disagrees with this policy.
In any case, Rabbi Sternbuch has gotten the Edah HaCharedis rabbis on board with his Psak and has come out with a proclamation de-legitimizing EJF.
This is the germane paragraph:
Because of the dire consequences of intermarriage, there was a strong barrier that prevented many from intermarrying. However now that the consequence of exclusion from the Jewish people has been removed - this motivation not to intermarry has been lost. Consequently these intermarried couples and their children remain amongst the Jewish people. This results in their non-Jewish children being accepted into religious schools out of the hope that they will eventually convert.
It should be stated that in his original Psak, Rabbi Sternbuch does permit converting children of an intermarriage when they come to us of their own volition.
It seems from this proclamation which is basically a re-statement of Rabbi Sternbuch’s earlier Psak, that the reason for not allowing seeking converts from intermarried couples is that it is deterrent to intermarriage. The question remains about whether he would apply it to NCSY. Would he use the same rationale of deterrence to simply reject those NCSYers who are products of an intermarriage? Or would he consider them as coming of their own volition? That is unclear and the controversy remains.
There is another issue here. It is very surprising that Rav Sternbuch would urge rabbis not to participate in this event considering that a man he venerates, Rav Elyashiv is participating. Can it be that he sees Rabbi Eisenstein as an invalid representative of Rav Elyashiv? Or is he disagreeing with Rav Elyashiv on this matter? Or is Rav Elyashiv unaware of this component? If so, why is that? Do they not speak to each other?
In my view the controversy created by EJF is so great that de-legitimizing it is a good thing. The controversy was created by Rabbi Eisenstien. He wanted only ‘believers’ to qualify as a Dayan... a judge on the new conversion Beis Din. The conversion court system that would result after the process of conversion be standardized. It would require that rabbis not have heretical beliefs. Rabbi Eisenstein wanted to make clear that believers in an ancient universe disqualify them from serving on a conversion Beis Din.
Some people actually claim that Rabbi Eisenstein said they are actual heretics if they believe this. That isn’t clear. What is clear is that he is constantly doing things to alienate Jews he doesn’t agree with. And using an EJF platform where many rabbibnic leaders were in attendance gave him a broad pulpit to do so. And since he is Rav Elyashiv’s representative. It was a bully pulpit.
It is ironic that the Edah has condemned EJF. They probably agree with Rabbi Eisenstein’s views about the ‘hersey’ of an ancient universe. But whatever the reason, I’m glad they did it. If what comes out of such an organization can so contribute to the divide in Klal Yisroel it deserves to go into the ash bin of history.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Price of Inaction
One of the things not talked about too much is the fact that some of the so called kids at risk… are at risk because they have been sexually abused. I don’t think that there is really any great revelation in this fact. But it was really brought home to me again in an article in Ha’aretz. It is about Avreimel Mondrowitz. My feeling about him is one of pure disgust. He is a sick man, but deserves to pay dearly for all the pain he's caused in not controlling that sickness.
For a period of over 20 those years he molested young vulnerable ‘patients’. These were children that were in many cases already victims of abuse and were sent to him by parents and school officials. He presented himself to the Torah world as a qualified, credentialed, and degreed child psychologist who would treat his patients Al Pi Halacha… according to Jewish law.
Of course all those claims were false. Especially the one about ‘Al Pi Halacha’. He wasn’t a therapist at all but a sexual predator who took advantage of the vulnerability of his young victims. What’s worse is that he ‘set up shop’ precisely in a way that would gain access to these victims in private… and then victimize them further.
My disgust is directed at this sick predator. But my anger is at the way the rabbinic leadership of all stripes has in the past treated the entire issue of sex abuse in the Jewish community. They are only now beginning to address the problem. But when I think of how many people were victimized because of their sluggish response, I want to just vomit.
I am certainly not the first one to cry out about it. There are others much louder than I and they scream about this issue every day, And though I don’t approve of their tactics, I do approve of their passion.
I can appreciate the concerns expressed by rabbinic leaders which are responsible for their past reticence in acting. They are worried about false accusations… and their devastating impact on the accused, his family and the reputation of the Torah world. Those concerns are valid, but on this issue, misplaced. One cannot afford to worry about what your lawn is going to look like when your house is on fire. You need to put out the fire first.
And they didn’t. They did not want the front lawn to get damaged. I realize that people aren’t lawns and people who are falsely accused can rarely get their reputations fully restored. There does have to be a certain degree of care and deliberation on a matter as serious as this. But the most important thing is to stop the abuser from ever doing it again. This did not happen in far too many occasions.
Their motives were pure. But that allowed the abuse to continue. They gave the accused the benefit of the doubt so as not to hurt an innocent man or his family for life. It is true that accusations like this can adversely affect a family in countless ways for the rest of their lives. But in protecting a potentially innocent person, the potentially greater and ongoing tragedy of sex abuse is perpetuated.
What they should have done in every case where someone is accused of child sexual abuse is to immediately remove the accused from his position and made sure he was not allowed to be around potential victims while investigated the accusations. If after a short period of due diligence it was determined that there was even the slightest chance that the accusations were true, They needed to report it to the authorities so that they could use their full resources to investigate. If the accused ended up being innocent, that too is a tragedy. But the greater tragedy by far is to allow a potential abuser to continue abusing children unabated.
Most victims suffer life long trauma. Not all of them end up in the gutter. Some can overcome the abuse and lead normal lives, but the abuse is always with them at some level and it affects them negatively. And for some… they suffer lifelong severe mental problems. Some even become abusers themselves!
No where has this picture been better painted than in the story of Avreimal Mondrowitz, who has just been arrested and is expected to be extradited to the United States to stand trial for his crimes. His story is reported in an in depth article by Ha’aretz. It is hair raising. Read it and weep.
For a period of over 20 those years he molested young vulnerable ‘patients’. These were children that were in many cases already victims of abuse and were sent to him by parents and school officials. He presented himself to the Torah world as a qualified, credentialed, and degreed child psychologist who would treat his patients Al Pi Halacha… according to Jewish law.
Of course all those claims were false. Especially the one about ‘Al Pi Halacha’. He wasn’t a therapist at all but a sexual predator who took advantage of the vulnerability of his young victims. What’s worse is that he ‘set up shop’ precisely in a way that would gain access to these victims in private… and then victimize them further.
My disgust is directed at this sick predator. But my anger is at the way the rabbinic leadership of all stripes has in the past treated the entire issue of sex abuse in the Jewish community. They are only now beginning to address the problem. But when I think of how many people were victimized because of their sluggish response, I want to just vomit.
I am certainly not the first one to cry out about it. There are others much louder than I and they scream about this issue every day, And though I don’t approve of their tactics, I do approve of their passion.
I can appreciate the concerns expressed by rabbinic leaders which are responsible for their past reticence in acting. They are worried about false accusations… and their devastating impact on the accused, his family and the reputation of the Torah world. Those concerns are valid, but on this issue, misplaced. One cannot afford to worry about what your lawn is going to look like when your house is on fire. You need to put out the fire first.
And they didn’t. They did not want the front lawn to get damaged. I realize that people aren’t lawns and people who are falsely accused can rarely get their reputations fully restored. There does have to be a certain degree of care and deliberation on a matter as serious as this. But the most important thing is to stop the abuser from ever doing it again. This did not happen in far too many occasions.
Their motives were pure. But that allowed the abuse to continue. They gave the accused the benefit of the doubt so as not to hurt an innocent man or his family for life. It is true that accusations like this can adversely affect a family in countless ways for the rest of their lives. But in protecting a potentially innocent person, the potentially greater and ongoing tragedy of sex abuse is perpetuated.
What they should have done in every case where someone is accused of child sexual abuse is to immediately remove the accused from his position and made sure he was not allowed to be around potential victims while investigated the accusations. If after a short period of due diligence it was determined that there was even the slightest chance that the accusations were true, They needed to report it to the authorities so that they could use their full resources to investigate. If the accused ended up being innocent, that too is a tragedy. But the greater tragedy by far is to allow a potential abuser to continue abusing children unabated.
Most victims suffer life long trauma. Not all of them end up in the gutter. Some can overcome the abuse and lead normal lives, but the abuse is always with them at some level and it affects them negatively. And for some… they suffer lifelong severe mental problems. Some even become abusers themselves!
No where has this picture been better painted than in the story of Avreimal Mondrowitz, who has just been arrested and is expected to be extradited to the United States to stand trial for his crimes. His story is reported in an in depth article by Ha’aretz. It is hair raising. Read it and weep.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Begging for Charity
I have never been comfortable with our current system of giving Tzedaka to the poor. I’m not talking about the very fine charity organizations like The Chicago Chesed Fund. They do a generally terrific job of collecting and distributing money to truly needy Jews. I’m talking about what has turned into a very profitable business enterprise, the Meshulachim… people in need of Charity…who come in from out of town, usually Israel… and collect in Shuls and go door to door with their green cards. The Green cards are picture IDs issued by Agudah that certify whether these people are who they say they are and that their claims are valid.
I’m sure that they are all not rich. But they do quite well as Meshulachim. Some of them come back on a yearly basis. I have heard that many have so many frequent flyer miles that they are always able to upgrade to business class.
The Meshulachim are almost 100% Charedi… mostly Chasidic.
I don’t disparage them for that. I simply point out that this is how they look. There can be several reasons for this. That community is in fact the most in need generally so identifying oneself that way lends them a certain degree of automatic credibility. That should not surprise anyone considering the 70% unemployment rate. They might also feel that if they look Frum more people will believe them.
But even though Agudah supposedly checks them out and certifies them, I still question whether they truly are in as dire straits as they claim. An article in World Jewish Review demonstrates why I feel that way. Though the beggars in the article are not the same ones who come to my Shul in droves almost everyday, they do exhibit some similar characteristics.
I generally never refuse anyone who asks me for charity for themselves or their families. One never knows who is truly needy or is just skillfully gaming the system and generating a great deal of money for themselves. Far more than one might expect, I’ll bet. But I’d rather err on the side of giving money to those that don’t really need it so much than to deprives someone who truly does need it… although I suspect that the former is much more numerous than the latter.
So because of this lack of confidence, I do not give it with pleasure but resentfully. I do so with suspicion that I am being scammed… at least some level. Which is a shame for the truly honest ones. If I could discern between them I would take all the money that I give to the scammers and instead give it to the ones who need it the most. Who wouldn’t?
But these Meshulachim are Tzadikim compared to those that frequent the Kotel. There is an article in Jewish World Review about a ban issued against them. The descriptions in that article are quite accurate. And the initial feelings of the author are correct. But her conclusions are the opposite of my own. She says we need these beggars. I disagree.
I was told on more than one occasion by various Rabbanim that almost all the beggars at the Kotel are swindlers and thieves and that they shouldn’t be given a penny. Better to throw the money in the garbage than to give it to any of them, man or woman.
And the following story cements that view for me.
One of my daughters was ‘attacked’ by such a group at the Kotel. When she first came to Israel for her seminary year, she wanted to give some of her Maaser Kesafim (charity funds) to the beggars at the Kotel. So she pulled out a 5 dollar bill. They descended upon her like vultures when they saw that money. It scared the living daylights out of her.
Next time anyone is tempted to give money to any of the beggars at the Kotel... remember this story.
I’m sure that they are all not rich. But they do quite well as Meshulachim. Some of them come back on a yearly basis. I have heard that many have so many frequent flyer miles that they are always able to upgrade to business class.
The Meshulachim are almost 100% Charedi… mostly Chasidic.
I don’t disparage them for that. I simply point out that this is how they look. There can be several reasons for this. That community is in fact the most in need generally so identifying oneself that way lends them a certain degree of automatic credibility. That should not surprise anyone considering the 70% unemployment rate. They might also feel that if they look Frum more people will believe them.
But even though Agudah supposedly checks them out and certifies them, I still question whether they truly are in as dire straits as they claim. An article in World Jewish Review demonstrates why I feel that way. Though the beggars in the article are not the same ones who come to my Shul in droves almost everyday, they do exhibit some similar characteristics.
I generally never refuse anyone who asks me for charity for themselves or their families. One never knows who is truly needy or is just skillfully gaming the system and generating a great deal of money for themselves. Far more than one might expect, I’ll bet. But I’d rather err on the side of giving money to those that don’t really need it so much than to deprives someone who truly does need it… although I suspect that the former is much more numerous than the latter.
So because of this lack of confidence, I do not give it with pleasure but resentfully. I do so with suspicion that I am being scammed… at least some level. Which is a shame for the truly honest ones. If I could discern between them I would take all the money that I give to the scammers and instead give it to the ones who need it the most. Who wouldn’t?
But these Meshulachim are Tzadikim compared to those that frequent the Kotel. There is an article in Jewish World Review about a ban issued against them. The descriptions in that article are quite accurate. And the initial feelings of the author are correct. But her conclusions are the opposite of my own. She says we need these beggars. I disagree.
I was told on more than one occasion by various Rabbanim that almost all the beggars at the Kotel are swindlers and thieves and that they shouldn’t be given a penny. Better to throw the money in the garbage than to give it to any of them, man or woman.
And the following story cements that view for me.
One of my daughters was ‘attacked’ by such a group at the Kotel. When she first came to Israel for her seminary year, she wanted to give some of her Maaser Kesafim (charity funds) to the beggars at the Kotel. So she pulled out a 5 dollar bill. They descended upon her like vultures when they saw that money. It scared the living daylights out of her.
Next time anyone is tempted to give money to any of the beggars at the Kotel... remember this story.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Men at Work? Not Really
Last Sunday I saw a very disheartening but very unsurprising statistic. It was reported in Ha’aretz that 70% of Charedi men do not work. What was a bit more surprising is that 50% of women do not work either. I’m don’t know how many of those women are married to men who don't work either. But what ever it may be the situation is a ticking time bomb in my view.
As most people know the reason there are so many men who don’t work is that they have committed their lives to full time learning. I wonder though what percentage is of these 70% that actually learn.
The sad fact is that I doubt that it approaches anywhere near all of them. I have spoken to some very knowledgeable Charedim in Israel about this issue and they quietly agree that this is a real problem. There is a tremendous amount of Batala …wasted time taking place within the four walls of the Beis Hamedrash… and without. Not that all of them don’t learn at all... although there are more than a few like that. Most of them do learn at various different levels. But not at a level that justifies their being in that system and not working. The social pressure to stay in learning is so great that these people refuse to budge. So they continue to… sit. But not to learn that much.
The question is how do they survive financially? And how do they live with themselves? I don't know how one can ratioanalize being supported by others if they know they do not measure up to what they know is the very high standard demanded of them. It must takes its toll psychologically on him and on his family.
Financial survival depends on many factor. Living very frugally is paramount. Sometimes there is family support. Others just max out their credit cards and then go to every G’mach (interest free loan societies) they can find. They are always in debt. They rely on government support through the welfare system, and of course there are the famous charities like Kupat Ha’ir, who stretch the limits of ethics to collect funds for the survival of these families.
There are reasons that the unemployment rate is so high that go beyond the Charedi Torah learning Hashkafos. There is the problem of army service. This is deemed to be a Yehoreg V’A Yaavor for Charedi men, not to mention Charedi women. They are forbidden to join the army by their rabbinc leaders.
This has long been a source of friction between Charedim on one side and Chilonim and religious Zionists on the other. Aside from putting Charedim in a cowardly light (though that isn’t the reason they don’t serve)…it is a major component in why they do not work. Israeli law requires military service before entry into the work force. So… they sit… in a Beis Hamedrash.
But it almost doesn’t matter what the reason is. The fact is that 70% do not work and contribute little to the economy. And in many cases are a financial drain to their parents, the government, and the multiple free loan societies and charity organizations.
And then there is the little matter that so few are trained to work. That there is no secular education beyond 8th grade is not conducive to finding decent employment even if they could work.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the learning that took place justified their not working. It would in fact be laudable that they are willing to sacrifice their financial security in order to learn Torah at a high level. But the fact is that far too many don’t learn any where near that level. Not in time spent... nor in quality.
So we end up with a huge society that perpetuates a poverty class that is growing exponentially with every generation. And along with that growth is a proportional amount of men who do not really learn sufficiently to justify their not working. If the financial structure of that community is stretched to the limit now, what will it look like in twenty five years when all the many children of these families grow up and have families of their own to support.
I can’t imagine a more wasteful life then one who is not equipped to learn full time, being socially pressured to stay in a system that insists on it. And then have to be supported by others.
Except for the 70% figure, there is nothing really new in this post. But when I read this article it reminded me of just how bleak the future of the Charedi world in Israel looks unless things change. Will they? Probably. They’ll have to. But if one listens to the rhetoric still coming out of those circles, it won’t happen without a fight.
What that fight will look like, I don’t know. But we have an irresistible force: increasing and often crushing poverty about to meet the immovable object: the Charedi philosophical insistence on staying in learning full time. And there is virtually no preparation for the workplace.
In my view at some point the irresistible force will win out. Just when and how? Well Charedim already have Nachal Charedi and the Tal Law, two ways that they can fulfill their military service and then go to work. There are even a few vocational training centers designed for Charedim that are popping up here and there. But certainly not enough of them to make a major difference. Yet. But all these factors still have some stiff resistance among some of their most respected rabbinic leaders.
There are also signs of life altering strain in that community that are just below the surface: Charedim dropping out of the system to the point of becoming less religious or totally irreligious. Kids at risk, Adults at risk…
Stay tuned.
As most people know the reason there are so many men who don’t work is that they have committed their lives to full time learning. I wonder though what percentage is of these 70% that actually learn.
The sad fact is that I doubt that it approaches anywhere near all of them. I have spoken to some very knowledgeable Charedim in Israel about this issue and they quietly agree that this is a real problem. There is a tremendous amount of Batala …wasted time taking place within the four walls of the Beis Hamedrash… and without. Not that all of them don’t learn at all... although there are more than a few like that. Most of them do learn at various different levels. But not at a level that justifies their being in that system and not working. The social pressure to stay in learning is so great that these people refuse to budge. So they continue to… sit. But not to learn that much.
The question is how do they survive financially? And how do they live with themselves? I don't know how one can ratioanalize being supported by others if they know they do not measure up to what they know is the very high standard demanded of them. It must takes its toll psychologically on him and on his family.
Financial survival depends on many factor. Living very frugally is paramount. Sometimes there is family support. Others just max out their credit cards and then go to every G’mach (interest free loan societies) they can find. They are always in debt. They rely on government support through the welfare system, and of course there are the famous charities like Kupat Ha’ir, who stretch the limits of ethics to collect funds for the survival of these families.
There are reasons that the unemployment rate is so high that go beyond the Charedi Torah learning Hashkafos. There is the problem of army service. This is deemed to be a Yehoreg V’A Yaavor for Charedi men, not to mention Charedi women. They are forbidden to join the army by their rabbinc leaders.
This has long been a source of friction between Charedim on one side and Chilonim and religious Zionists on the other. Aside from putting Charedim in a cowardly light (though that isn’t the reason they don’t serve)…it is a major component in why they do not work. Israeli law requires military service before entry into the work force. So… they sit… in a Beis Hamedrash.
But it almost doesn’t matter what the reason is. The fact is that 70% do not work and contribute little to the economy. And in many cases are a financial drain to their parents, the government, and the multiple free loan societies and charity organizations.
And then there is the little matter that so few are trained to work. That there is no secular education beyond 8th grade is not conducive to finding decent employment even if they could work.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the learning that took place justified their not working. It would in fact be laudable that they are willing to sacrifice their financial security in order to learn Torah at a high level. But the fact is that far too many don’t learn any where near that level. Not in time spent... nor in quality.
So we end up with a huge society that perpetuates a poverty class that is growing exponentially with every generation. And along with that growth is a proportional amount of men who do not really learn sufficiently to justify their not working. If the financial structure of that community is stretched to the limit now, what will it look like in twenty five years when all the many children of these families grow up and have families of their own to support.
I can’t imagine a more wasteful life then one who is not equipped to learn full time, being socially pressured to stay in a system that insists on it. And then have to be supported by others.
Except for the 70% figure, there is nothing really new in this post. But when I read this article it reminded me of just how bleak the future of the Charedi world in Israel looks unless things change. Will they? Probably. They’ll have to. But if one listens to the rhetoric still coming out of those circles, it won’t happen without a fight.
What that fight will look like, I don’t know. But we have an irresistible force: increasing and often crushing poverty about to meet the immovable object: the Charedi philosophical insistence on staying in learning full time. And there is virtually no preparation for the workplace.
In my view at some point the irresistible force will win out. Just when and how? Well Charedim already have Nachal Charedi and the Tal Law, two ways that they can fulfill their military service and then go to work. There are even a few vocational training centers designed for Charedim that are popping up here and there. But certainly not enough of them to make a major difference. Yet. But all these factors still have some stiff resistance among some of their most respected rabbinic leaders.
There are also signs of life altering strain in that community that are just below the surface: Charedim dropping out of the system to the point of becoming less religious or totally irreligious. Kids at risk, Adults at risk…
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A Crucifix at the Kotel
I can’t think of a more explicit symbol of Christianity than the crucifix. For many Jews throughout history the mere sight of it has struck fear and loathing into their hearts. Christianity has been the source of much persecution of the Jewish people over the millennia. It has been responsible for some of the worst torture and slaughter in history. The Crusades and the Inquisition alone provide ample evidence of that. And there was more. Much more.
The persecution of Jews by Christendom has persisted almost un-abated since its very inception. One need only look at the ‘New’ Testament to see how far back in history it goes. That's where it all began. Jews are blamed in at least one of the Gospels to have encouraged the crucifixion of Jesus. Because of all this persecution the Jewish people have understandably developed an almost guttural revulsion to the crucifix. And that brings me to the following story.
A group of fourteen Austrian Catholic bishops recently went to the Kotel wearing crucifixes as part of their formal attire. I’m not sure of the Halachic dimensions of this, but the Rav of the Kotel, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch forbade them entry unless they removed their crucifixes. The Bishops refused.
Though I am not certain, I believe it is not required by Halacha for a priest to remove that symbol at the Kotel. But I understand the sentiment of the Rav. The question is, assuming there is no Issur, was he justified in making this demand? After all he did allow them to go to the Kotel to pray. And they do pray to Jesus, their god. Does it make it worse to allow them to wear that symbol while doing so?
I doubt that the crucifix itself can be considered an object of idolatry. They do not pray to it. It is only symbolic of how their god died on the cross. They do not worship a cross.
I also recall Pope John Paul personally placing a Kvittel, a prayer note into one of the crevices in the Kotel… and then saying a prayer afterward. It was done with the full approval of the Rav of the Kotel. Is there a symbol of Catholic Christianity greater than the Pope?
Assuming I am correct that it is not Halachicly forbidden, I think the Rav of the Kotel was wrong to make an issue of it. Why do something that will embarrass and alienate those who have in recent times extended a hand of friendship and apologized for their over two millennia of bad behavior to the Jewish people? Perhaps those priests should have thought of it themselves. But they didn’t. And they were insulted as a result. To understand the insult I suppose a milder reverse equivalent would be the Pope asking a Jew to remove his Kipa when entering the Vatican.
It also appears that this was a last minute demand. If I understand the article correctly, had they been asked in advance, the bishops might have accommodated him. But to ask them to remove the crucifixes once they are already there is confrontational and does seem insulting.
This incident is reminiscent of the time that a group of Cardinals entered Yeshiva University to observe first hand the wonderful things they had heard about how those students studied Jewish law. The outcry by Telshe Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Keller about it at the time seems similar to that of Rav Rabinovitch. Rabbi Keller called it a Chilul HaShem to allow the Cardinals dressed in full regalia… crucifix and all into a Yeshiva Beis HaMedrash. He considered it a travesty. But I said at the time that Yeshiva University was pressured into doing it. (I no longer re-call what the pressure was.)
Though they would have preferred not to host the bishops at all, Yeshiva officials felt that it would have been a Chilul HaShem to rebuff them at a time in our history when the Catholic Church has done so much to mend fences with us. So they allowed it. It would have been better had the Cardinals not come wearing their full red Cardinal attire. And YU had not foreseen it so as to be able to forstall it. But it wasn’t the end of the world. In the end it turned out to be a big Kiddush HaShem. The Cardinals had nothing but praise for YU in how they were treated, and in what they observed.
There was a similar incident at Yeshiva Chovevei Torah shortly after that. One to which I was opposed. In that case the Cardinals were actually invited to come learn Torah with the students in the Beis HaMedrash. That crossed a line and perhaps even violated Halacha. This was illustrated immediately by what was reported in the very first article about the event.
During the study session in their Beis HaMedrash, individual students were chosen to learn with individual Cardinals as study-partners (Chavrusos). One student explained a Jewish ritual in the Gemarah to his Chavrusa. The Chavrusa replied that Jesus must have done it that way too. This could have easily been a slippery slope to a theological dialogue between Jews and Christians. And what made it worse is that it was learned and experienced Catholic Cardinals paired with young and inexperienced students.
But with the Bishops at the Kotel, none of that was happening. Indeed the invitation by the Kotel Rav was still open to these Bishops to pray. It was not their prayer to Jesus that was an issue. It was their crucifixes. Is the prayer of a group of Christian bishops to their god at one of our holiest places made so much worse by their wearing a crucifix? So much so that it warrants insulting them? I don’t think so. I think Rabbi Rabinovitch may have had an understandably visceral reaction to what has become for many Jews... a horrific religious symbol. A reaction that probably should have been subdued.
Update:
After I wrote this post I was made aware that a Crucifix may very well be classified as an object of Avodah Zara. A few commenters who are more knowlegable than I am on this subject have pointed this out and one has pointed me in the direction of a Wikipedia article on the subject.
I had always thought that a crucifix and a cross were synonymous. And that both were merely symbols, and not objects of actual worship. Apparently they are not the same. A crucifix has a graven image of Jesus on a cross. This and a description in the Wiki article about how it is used might make it an object of Avodah Zara. I am going to leave the post intact along with this update as clarification.
The primary point of the post was to make note of an embarrassing situation created through an oversight by the Rav of the Kotel. That could have easily been avoided.
As I receive further clarification, I will update accordingly.
Modified: 11/15/07 7:35 PM CST
The persecution of Jews by Christendom has persisted almost un-abated since its very inception. One need only look at the ‘New’ Testament to see how far back in history it goes. That's where it all began. Jews are blamed in at least one of the Gospels to have encouraged the crucifixion of Jesus. Because of all this persecution the Jewish people have understandably developed an almost guttural revulsion to the crucifix. And that brings me to the following story.
A group of fourteen Austrian Catholic bishops recently went to the Kotel wearing crucifixes as part of their formal attire. I’m not sure of the Halachic dimensions of this, but the Rav of the Kotel, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch forbade them entry unless they removed their crucifixes. The Bishops refused.
Though I am not certain, I believe it is not required by Halacha for a priest to remove that symbol at the Kotel. But I understand the sentiment of the Rav. The question is, assuming there is no Issur, was he justified in making this demand? After all he did allow them to go to the Kotel to pray. And they do pray to Jesus, their god. Does it make it worse to allow them to wear that symbol while doing so?
I doubt that the crucifix itself can be considered an object of idolatry. They do not pray to it. It is only symbolic of how their god died on the cross. They do not worship a cross.
I also recall Pope John Paul personally placing a Kvittel, a prayer note into one of the crevices in the Kotel… and then saying a prayer afterward. It was done with the full approval of the Rav of the Kotel. Is there a symbol of Catholic Christianity greater than the Pope?
Assuming I am correct that it is not Halachicly forbidden, I think the Rav of the Kotel was wrong to make an issue of it. Why do something that will embarrass and alienate those who have in recent times extended a hand of friendship and apologized for their over two millennia of bad behavior to the Jewish people? Perhaps those priests should have thought of it themselves. But they didn’t. And they were insulted as a result. To understand the insult I suppose a milder reverse equivalent would be the Pope asking a Jew to remove his Kipa when entering the Vatican.
It also appears that this was a last minute demand. If I understand the article correctly, had they been asked in advance, the bishops might have accommodated him. But to ask them to remove the crucifixes once they are already there is confrontational and does seem insulting.
This incident is reminiscent of the time that a group of Cardinals entered Yeshiva University to observe first hand the wonderful things they had heard about how those students studied Jewish law. The outcry by Telshe Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Keller about it at the time seems similar to that of Rav Rabinovitch. Rabbi Keller called it a Chilul HaShem to allow the Cardinals dressed in full regalia… crucifix and all into a Yeshiva Beis HaMedrash. He considered it a travesty. But I said at the time that Yeshiva University was pressured into doing it. (I no longer re-call what the pressure was.)
Though they would have preferred not to host the bishops at all, Yeshiva officials felt that it would have been a Chilul HaShem to rebuff them at a time in our history when the Catholic Church has done so much to mend fences with us. So they allowed it. It would have been better had the Cardinals not come wearing their full red Cardinal attire. And YU had not foreseen it so as to be able to forstall it. But it wasn’t the end of the world. In the end it turned out to be a big Kiddush HaShem. The Cardinals had nothing but praise for YU in how they were treated, and in what they observed.
There was a similar incident at Yeshiva Chovevei Torah shortly after that. One to which I was opposed. In that case the Cardinals were actually invited to come learn Torah with the students in the Beis HaMedrash. That crossed a line and perhaps even violated Halacha. This was illustrated immediately by what was reported in the very first article about the event.
During the study session in their Beis HaMedrash, individual students were chosen to learn with individual Cardinals as study-partners (Chavrusos). One student explained a Jewish ritual in the Gemarah to his Chavrusa. The Chavrusa replied that Jesus must have done it that way too. This could have easily been a slippery slope to a theological dialogue between Jews and Christians. And what made it worse is that it was learned and experienced Catholic Cardinals paired with young and inexperienced students.
But with the Bishops at the Kotel, none of that was happening. Indeed the invitation by the Kotel Rav was still open to these Bishops to pray. It was not their prayer to Jesus that was an issue. It was their crucifixes. Is the prayer of a group of Christian bishops to their god at one of our holiest places made so much worse by their wearing a crucifix? So much so that it warrants insulting them? I don’t think so. I think Rabbi Rabinovitch may have had an understandably visceral reaction to what has become for many Jews... a horrific religious symbol. A reaction that probably should have been subdued.
Update:
After I wrote this post I was made aware that a Crucifix may very well be classified as an object of Avodah Zara. A few commenters who are more knowlegable than I am on this subject have pointed this out and one has pointed me in the direction of a Wikipedia article on the subject.
I had always thought that a crucifix and a cross were synonymous. And that both were merely symbols, and not objects of actual worship. Apparently they are not the same. A crucifix has a graven image of Jesus on a cross. This and a description in the Wiki article about how it is used might make it an object of Avodah Zara. I am going to leave the post intact along with this update as clarification.
The primary point of the post was to make note of an embarrassing situation created through an oversight by the Rav of the Kotel. That could have easily been avoided.
As I receive further clarification, I will update accordingly.
Modified: 11/15/07 7:35 PM CST
The Fool Who Believes Anything
Daas Torah. This is a subject often discussed here. Where do we get Daas Torah? It is based on something called Emunas Chachamim. What is that? Some would say it is synonymous with Daas Torah. Perhaps. In any case, that is the subject of an article in Hakirah Magazine. Thanks to Rabbi Gil Student’s blog Hirhurim for his announcing the new issue of Hakirah.
I’m not going to re-hash my views here. But I am going to post the conclusion of the article which in brief basically reflects my views on the subject. The article can be found in its entirety here in PDF. It was written by HaRav Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch who is a Musmach (an ordained Rabbi) of Yeshivas Ner Israel and is Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Birkat Moshe in Maaleh Adumim, Israel. It is a brilliantly executed explanation of the term and how it should be applied today. It is fully sourced and footnoted and well worth the read.
Recently, some have begun applying the term “emunat hakhamim” to something else entirely, something that Hazal never discussed—that hakhamim also have prophetic authority in divrei reshut. We are not talking about asking advice of those who are experienced and wise in Torah, whose righteousness, Torah knowledge and brilliance provide good guidance and sound advice.
It is surely good for any person to seek advice from those who are greater and better than he. But there is a difference between asking advice and taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, and relying on others with absolutely no independent thought.
There are those who label such childish behavior as “emunat hakhamim” while in reality it is a distortion of this great attribute. Instead of acquiring true Torah, those who cling to this distorted “emunat hakhamim” distance themselves from the light of the Torah and are ultimately incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
The distinction between a prophet and a hakham is clear enough. When a prophet instructs on divrei reshut, not only are we commanded to obey, but “it is forbidden to have any thoughts of doubt or to contemplate the possibility that the prophecy never took place, and it is forbidden to challenge him excessively” (10:6).
With a hakham, however, emunat hakhamim requires us to clarify and elucidate his every word, and one who does not do so is simply a “fool who believes anything.” If this is true for Torah, then even more so for divrei reshut. “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but one who acts with wisdom will prevail.
I’m not going to re-hash my views here. But I am going to post the conclusion of the article which in brief basically reflects my views on the subject. The article can be found in its entirety here in PDF. It was written by HaRav Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch who is a Musmach (an ordained Rabbi) of Yeshivas Ner Israel and is Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Birkat Moshe in Maaleh Adumim, Israel. It is a brilliantly executed explanation of the term and how it should be applied today. It is fully sourced and footnoted and well worth the read.
Recently, some have begun applying the term “emunat hakhamim” to something else entirely, something that Hazal never discussed—that hakhamim also have prophetic authority in divrei reshut. We are not talking about asking advice of those who are experienced and wise in Torah, whose righteousness, Torah knowledge and brilliance provide good guidance and sound advice.
It is surely good for any person to seek advice from those who are greater and better than he. But there is a difference between asking advice and taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, and relying on others with absolutely no independent thought.
There are those who label such childish behavior as “emunat hakhamim” while in reality it is a distortion of this great attribute. Instead of acquiring true Torah, those who cling to this distorted “emunat hakhamim” distance themselves from the light of the Torah and are ultimately incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
The distinction between a prophet and a hakham is clear enough. When a prophet instructs on divrei reshut, not only are we commanded to obey, but “it is forbidden to have any thoughts of doubt or to contemplate the possibility that the prophecy never took place, and it is forbidden to challenge him excessively” (10:6).
With a hakham, however, emunat hakhamim requires us to clarify and elucidate his every word, and one who does not do so is simply a “fool who believes anything.” If this is true for Torah, then even more so for divrei reshut. “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but one who acts with wisdom will prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)