Curses. I’m not a big fan of cursing people as a means of dealing with evil. I don’t remember seeing that option laid out for me in the Torah as a remedy against public homosexual behavior. Nor do I think it is in the Gemara or Halacha. Be that as it may, this is in part the remedy offered by the Edah HaCharedis in Israel to fight off the Gay Pride parade. “Damn the Gays!”
OK. If that’s how they want to handle it, it’s their business. I do not agree with this method at all, but it’s none of my business who curses who. I’m in fact pretty sure that the Edah has been cursed over its existence by more than one individual, some of them pretty Frum, I’ll bet. Curses do not disrupt the peace.
The problem is that they do not want to stop there. They are now calling for violence.
Let’s peek at the future a bit by looking at the past. What was accomplished last time there was a protest like this? Jerusalem was trashed. Some innocent people were hurt and many more were inconvenienced. And the city looked like it had been vandalized by the worst of type gang members. Dumpsters overturned, trash burning in the streets. A beautiful city was ransacked. The result… the parade was moved from the streets of Jerusalem to a Jerusalem stadium. What a victory! The evil homosexuals were defeated. Never to be seen again. Until now, less than a year later. So, where’s the victory?
I guess the Edah feels if at first you don’t succeed try, try again. Only this time try harder. How much harder…? Are we going to see another knife wielding crazy person like the one we saw at a prior protest? …who will be inspired by the angry call of Edah head Rabbi Tuvia Weiss trying to stab a few homosexuals? Wouldn’t surprise me at all. The call to violence by Rabbi Weiss did not have any tempering words. It was instead a call to increase the violence to in his words: “shake the foundations”.
By now most people know my views about homosexuality. They are to be treated like human beings. V’Ahavta L’Re’echa Kamocha is not contingent on the level of Torah observance of one’s fellow Jew. If one has forbidden urges, one is not to be shunned because of it. And if one does act on them, he should be rebuked and dissuaded from repeating their transgressions … not just a homosexual or a heterosexual act but any Halachic violations.
The advocacy position of the parade organizers is what I am opposed to. No one should be advocating lifestyles that the Torah forbids. But succumbing to forbidden urges is part of the human condition and human frailty. Violators who succumb to a forbidden Taavah should be looked at sympathetically. It is the willful violators who proclaim it as a legitimate lifestyle that I oppose. And that is why I oppose the parade. And perhaps even more so, I oppose these kinds of parades because they are often a disgusting display of aberrant behavior by half dressed individuals, who think nothing displays of their private body parts in public.
Doing so in the holy city of Jerusalem makes the outrage all the greater. And in fact I don’t even blame the reaction the Edah has to this parade. The parade is an outrage! It is not about the dignity that so many Homosexuals crave and don’t get in our society. If it were just about that, I’m not sure the Edah would be so upset. Although they would be legitimately opposed, they would not be threatening to shake the foundations of Jerusalem.
But they are not justified, in my view at all to call for violent protest. Their protests which they view as a Kiddsuh HaShem have the potential to make an even greater Chilul HaShem instead. And there is the additional real possibility of innocent people getting hurt… as happened last time when the protest called for were not as severe. The more violent the protest, the more the media will get involved and broadcast to the world… NOT that the ultra Orthodox are protecting the sanctity of Jerusalem, but that they are a bunch of intolerant, primitive violent Jews no better than Hamas terrorists. It isn’t true of course, but that is how they will be portrayed. Ahhh… but will say that at least they are on record as opposing homosexuality. (As if no one realizes this yet!)
This is not a call for a peaceful protest. This is a clarion call for violent resistance. And to make maters worse, they consider the police the enemy here too.
Can any police officer be blamed for considering the Edah protesters the enemy after being put in the same basket as the gay paraders and cursed right along with them?
Last time something like this happened is 1968 in Chicago. The police were called pigs by the anti-Vietnam war protesters. The police reacted violently.
Cursing the police in Jerusalem is the moral equivalent of calling them pigs. I’d better not hear anything about police brutality after this is all over. You reap what you sow.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Secular Yeshiva
When I first heard about this Yeshiva, I had to laugh. A Secular Yeshiva?! What could that possibly mean? And when I started reading an article about it in Ha’aretz, I had the same attitude. In the opening paragraphs the author of this article’s approach to traditional Roshei Yeshiva as one of great deference. I then chuckled at the following:
“For some reason - maybe because of the laid-back personality of the rosh yeshiva, maybe because of her blue jeans - I allowed myself to speak to her in a way I never would have spoken to any of the yeshiva types I'd known before”
And indeed there is plenty to criticize about this place. It is certainly not a true Makom Torah. Perhaps one can even say it is a Makom Tumah. Most of the totally bare headed students there eat on Yom Kippur! My initial thoughts with respect to this place were that they are just a bunch of secularist Jews with an agenda to learn Torah in order to better be able to disprove it, or disparage it. But that is not the case.
This is a school where learning is taken quite seriously. And it seems that there is no agenda. Not a religious one or a secular one. The idea as stated by its “Rosh HaYeshiva” is to learn Torah L’Shma. Of course by Orthodoxy’s definition this cannot be Torah L’Shma. One must first be a Maamin... a believer... and a committed Shomer Torah and Mitzvos... observant. One cannot eat on Yom Kippur and say he is learning L’Shma. But in the sense that she means it it is L’Shma. Not for the sake of heaven but for the sake of Torah knowledge and no other reason.
The people who come here are either entirely secular in many cases from anti Frum backgrounds. Or they are from Frum backgrounds who have gone off the Derech… and yet want to re-attach and learn a bit more about Judaism from the classic sources without the pressures of staying Frum.
Pleases do not misunderstand. I do not endorse such a place as an alternative to Yeshivos any more than if the Vatican were to offer such courses. Well, perhaps a bit more. But basically these are non observant but somewhatr knowledgeble Jews who in their own minds and in their own way are teaching Torah as honestly as they can. Are they teaching it accurately? Probably not. Certainly not anything Orthodoxy would call accurate. But neither are they teaching it disparagingly or with an anti-religious agenda.
Who teaches there? One teacher is a former Charedi who “graduated” from a Charedi Yeshiva. But he is now no longer observant. Although he does still hold on to a few rituals like Teffilin. He is certainly not anyone I would even remotely consider in any role of teaching Torah or involved with Kiruv. Yet….
So what is their goal, if it is not to bash Torah? According to the “Rosh HaYeshiva” it is to give content or as I would put it, meaning to one’s life. The students that are there are either pre-army, deferred in order to study Torah full time for a modest ‘tuition’. Or they are post army and paid a stipend… kind of like a Kollel.
One might ask, if these students are seeking truth, why don’t they just go to an Ohr Sameach or another Bal Teshuva type Yeshiva? Well, that would be great if they were so inclined. But they do not want to be observant. Some of them stem from anti religious Kibbutzim, hardly Kiruv fodder. They just want to know what Judaism teaches. And they want it unfiltered… not through Orthodoxy or through a secularist agenda.
After reading this article, my attitude of ridicule changed.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend that any Frum person go there. Nor would I recommend it as a Kiruv Yeshiva at all. God forbid. But it does have a Kiruv affect on some people, And the “Rosh HaYeshiva” does not consider it a failure if one of her students becomes Frum. She actually considers that a success. And in fact there are descriptions in the story of students from totally secular backgrounds starting to observe Mitzvos for the first time in their lives. And the fact that some of the anti-religious parents are paranoid about their children ‘going of the Derech’ and becoming observant makes it obvious to me that such a possibility must exist and have actually happened.
So I no longer laugh at this place. If the Rosh HaYeshiva has enough respect for the words of the Torah to understand that someone might become religious and actually applauds that, then I would not do anything to undermine it. Because if one learns Torah without an anti religious agenda, the result cannot be that it will not have a positive impact.
The message the Gemarah teaches is one of morality, and belief. And it teaches the importance of doing Mitzvos so as to give life meaning. And in a non-anti Religious environment, even if it is secular in approach, it can’t but be absorbed at some level. And this can only be good.
“For some reason - maybe because of the laid-back personality of the rosh yeshiva, maybe because of her blue jeans - I allowed myself to speak to her in a way I never would have spoken to any of the yeshiva types I'd known before”
And indeed there is plenty to criticize about this place. It is certainly not a true Makom Torah. Perhaps one can even say it is a Makom Tumah. Most of the totally bare headed students there eat on Yom Kippur! My initial thoughts with respect to this place were that they are just a bunch of secularist Jews with an agenda to learn Torah in order to better be able to disprove it, or disparage it. But that is not the case.
This is a school where learning is taken quite seriously. And it seems that there is no agenda. Not a religious one or a secular one. The idea as stated by its “Rosh HaYeshiva” is to learn Torah L’Shma. Of course by Orthodoxy’s definition this cannot be Torah L’Shma. One must first be a Maamin... a believer... and a committed Shomer Torah and Mitzvos... observant. One cannot eat on Yom Kippur and say he is learning L’Shma. But in the sense that she means it it is L’Shma. Not for the sake of heaven but for the sake of Torah knowledge and no other reason.
The people who come here are either entirely secular in many cases from anti Frum backgrounds. Or they are from Frum backgrounds who have gone off the Derech… and yet want to re-attach and learn a bit more about Judaism from the classic sources without the pressures of staying Frum.
Pleases do not misunderstand. I do not endorse such a place as an alternative to Yeshivos any more than if the Vatican were to offer such courses. Well, perhaps a bit more. But basically these are non observant but somewhatr knowledgeble Jews who in their own minds and in their own way are teaching Torah as honestly as they can. Are they teaching it accurately? Probably not. Certainly not anything Orthodoxy would call accurate. But neither are they teaching it disparagingly or with an anti-religious agenda.
Who teaches there? One teacher is a former Charedi who “graduated” from a Charedi Yeshiva. But he is now no longer observant. Although he does still hold on to a few rituals like Teffilin. He is certainly not anyone I would even remotely consider in any role of teaching Torah or involved with Kiruv. Yet….
So what is their goal, if it is not to bash Torah? According to the “Rosh HaYeshiva” it is to give content or as I would put it, meaning to one’s life. The students that are there are either pre-army, deferred in order to study Torah full time for a modest ‘tuition’. Or they are post army and paid a stipend… kind of like a Kollel.
One might ask, if these students are seeking truth, why don’t they just go to an Ohr Sameach or another Bal Teshuva type Yeshiva? Well, that would be great if they were so inclined. But they do not want to be observant. Some of them stem from anti religious Kibbutzim, hardly Kiruv fodder. They just want to know what Judaism teaches. And they want it unfiltered… not through Orthodoxy or through a secularist agenda.
After reading this article, my attitude of ridicule changed.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend that any Frum person go there. Nor would I recommend it as a Kiruv Yeshiva at all. God forbid. But it does have a Kiruv affect on some people, And the “Rosh HaYeshiva” does not consider it a failure if one of her students becomes Frum. She actually considers that a success. And in fact there are descriptions in the story of students from totally secular backgrounds starting to observe Mitzvos for the first time in their lives. And the fact that some of the anti-religious parents are paranoid about their children ‘going of the Derech’ and becoming observant makes it obvious to me that such a possibility must exist and have actually happened.
So I no longer laugh at this place. If the Rosh HaYeshiva has enough respect for the words of the Torah to understand that someone might become religious and actually applauds that, then I would not do anything to undermine it. Because if one learns Torah without an anti religious agenda, the result cannot be that it will not have a positive impact.
The message the Gemarah teaches is one of morality, and belief. And it teaches the importance of doing Mitzvos so as to give life meaning. And in a non-anti Religious environment, even if it is secular in approach, it can’t but be absorbed at some level. And this can only be good.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Rabbi Nosson Scherman
When the history books are written about this era, surely one name that will be included amongst those having made a major impact on Torah Judaism will be that of Rabbi Nosson Scherman. He is the co-founder and publisher, along with Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz of the mega powerhouse of Jewish publishing, Mesorah Publications better known as ArtScroll.
Rabbi Scherman was interviewed in the most recent issue of Jewish Press and discussed the history... and what he believes to be purpose, and legacy of ArtScroll. During the course of the interview he was also asked about the oft heard criticisms of ArtScroll’s biography series. Rabbi Scherman’s response was very disappointing, but unfortunately not unexpected. From the article:
How do you respond to critics who accuse ArtScroll biographies of whitewashing history by characterizing great rabbis as saints without faults?
Our goal is to increase Torah learning and yiras shamayim. If somebody can be inspired by a gadol b’yisrael, then let him be inspired. Is it necessary to say that he had shortcomings? Does that help you become a better person? What about lashon hara? You know in today’s world, lashon hara is a mitzvah. Character assassination sells papers. That’s not what Klal Yisrael is all about.
Isn’t it a form of sheker (falsehood), though, to write a biography and knowingly exclude material?
Lahson Hara? Character assassinations? Long ugly noses? These responses might as well have come from those who were instrumental in banning Rav Nosson Kaminetsky’s “The Making of a Gadol”. Rabbi Kaminetsky was accused of besmirching Gedolim of yesteryear, by telling the truth about them.
The answer is clearly, Yes! Telling us that a Gadol was a human being who may have had some shortcomings that he overcame is exactly the inspiration! Doesn’t Rabbi Scherman realize that? To say...as Rav Kaminetsky puts it... that a Gadol was “Kodesh Merechem” ...born holy... isn’t inspiring. But that is how ArtScroll biographies are written. Rabbi Scherman justifies it by saying that it is Lashan Hara to say otherwise. I have yet to read an ArtScroll biography that paints their subjects as anything less than perfect humans...saints... from their birth, until to their death.
And what qualifies as Lashan Hara in ArtScroll’s eyes? To the best of my knowledge, it is any fact about a rabbinic figure that does not follow the current politically correct right wing ‘party line’.
How many people know, for example, that Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky studied Shakespeare? And that he was surprised that students in his own yeshiva did not know lines he had quoted to them from one of Shakespeare’s plays? Not too many, I’ll bet. And if Artscroll has anything to say about it, no one ever will.
I wonder how Rabbi Scherman’s biography will be written, .Will he too be portrayed as born holy? Is that how he wants his life portrayed? I doubt it.
Too bad, really. With all the resources at their disposal, ArtScroll could have been a great historical treasure trove of inspirational biographies. As they are now ...not so great!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Semicha: What’s It Worth? …and Is It for Women?
There has been an interesting discussion on Areivim regarding the issue of Semicha, rabbinic ordination. Can a woman get Semicha?
In response to a comment, one poster put it this way:
“Huh? Are you implying that the reason the rabbanut is closed to women is because we can't LEARN enough? I'm pretty sure that there are already a few women out there who are learned enough to pass the rabbanut smicha exams, and I expect that the number of such women will grow exponentially every decade. So we had better find a better reason than our limited education for keeping women out of the rabbinate. Oops - I guess the improper hashkafos from my Conservative upbringing are showing :-)”
I don't think it is about temperament, capabilities, knowledge, or intelligence. I totally believe that women are capable of passing the toughest Smicha exams. It is about how the gender roles are defined by God.
God in His infinite wisdom has told us what the male and female roles should be. A culture has therefore evolved whereby men do the bulk of the learning and women are in charge of the family. There is currently no environment for women that has the depth and breath of Torah study anywhere near that available to men. There is for example no Mir, Lakewood, or REITS for women.
But that does not mean they couldn't rise to the occasion if they had such an environment. Many of the incentives that men have are not available to women. They are not Metzuveh V'Oseh. They are not allowed to become Rabbis. And they are generally discouraged from spending the kind of time it would take to develop as Poskim in any case. That doesn't mean that the occasional highly motivated woman can't rise to the occasion. Obviously there are plenty examples of it. But it is the exception rather than the rule which, as I said is predicated on the will of God.
And how much value does Semicha have in our day anyway?
As another poster put it:
“The whole concept of "semicha" continues to become cheapened:
I know someone who actually did a correspondence course ( I believe via the internet and e-mail etc), where he was provided study materials with guided questions that he had to answer and submit, together with exams done the same way. The Yeshiva was in Yerushalayim (don't know the name). The whole course of study consisted of Hilchot Taarovot in YD. At the end, he flew to (Jerusalem) took a final exam, and was given "semicha" at a ceremony at the Kotel.
And, of course, back home, he's now a "Rav".”
This is true, especially in Right Wing Yeshivos (e.g in a Yeshiva like Lakewood). Getting Semicha is considered at best a waste of time. Over the years Semicha for various reasons has become almost a joke to them for many reasons. Among them:
There are and were many Poskim who do not have actual Semicha ( the Chafetz Chaim did not get one until after he wrote the Mishne Brurah!). On the other hand, there are many Musmchim (ordained rabbis) who are clueless!
I am pretty sure that Chaim Berlin does not give Yoreh Yoreh. If you have learned there long enough and have shown yourself to be adept at it and fairly knowledgable, they will officially call you rabbi if you wish and you can go apply for Jobs as one.
Lubavitch (I'm told by some Shelichim I know) has a similar approach. When they go out to outlying communties they can call themselves Rabbi without ever getting Semicha. I realize that Lubavitch does give a real Semicha, but a Shaliach without Semicha often identifies himself as a Rabbi to those communities in which he is do Kiruv.
In fact many Yeshivos have such a policy. They give "Rav uManhig" to any afternoon school teacher who learns in the yeshiva and needs to be called 'rabbi' by his students.
Add to this that many people have been given Smicha in the past who are relatively ignorant... and that there are so many Semicha factories in Israel that will give it to just about anyone who wants one with minimal effort …which has the added attarction for someone to say "I received Semicha in Israel!" (sounds even better than getting Smicha in the US doesn't it?)... and Semicha has been totally cheapened. Is it any wonder why so few Right Wing students pursue it today?
In response to a comment, one poster put it this way:
“Huh? Are you implying that the reason the rabbanut is closed to women is because we can't LEARN enough? I'm pretty sure that there are already a few women out there who are learned enough to pass the rabbanut smicha exams, and I expect that the number of such women will grow exponentially every decade. So we had better find a better reason than our limited education for keeping women out of the rabbinate. Oops - I guess the improper hashkafos from my Conservative upbringing are showing :-)”
I don't think it is about temperament, capabilities, knowledge, or intelligence. I totally believe that women are capable of passing the toughest Smicha exams. It is about how the gender roles are defined by God.
God in His infinite wisdom has told us what the male and female roles should be. A culture has therefore evolved whereby men do the bulk of the learning and women are in charge of the family. There is currently no environment for women that has the depth and breath of Torah study anywhere near that available to men. There is for example no Mir, Lakewood, or REITS for women.
But that does not mean they couldn't rise to the occasion if they had such an environment. Many of the incentives that men have are not available to women. They are not Metzuveh V'Oseh. They are not allowed to become Rabbis. And they are generally discouraged from spending the kind of time it would take to develop as Poskim in any case. That doesn't mean that the occasional highly motivated woman can't rise to the occasion. Obviously there are plenty examples of it. But it is the exception rather than the rule which, as I said is predicated on the will of God.
And how much value does Semicha have in our day anyway?
As another poster put it:
“The whole concept of "semicha" continues to become cheapened:
I know someone who actually did a correspondence course ( I believe via the internet and e-mail etc), where he was provided study materials with guided questions that he had to answer and submit, together with exams done the same way. The Yeshiva was in Yerushalayim (don't know the name). The whole course of study consisted of Hilchot Taarovot in YD. At the end, he flew to (Jerusalem) took a final exam, and was given "semicha" at a ceremony at the Kotel.
And, of course, back home, he's now a "Rav".”
This is true, especially in Right Wing Yeshivos (e.g in a Yeshiva like Lakewood). Getting Semicha is considered at best a waste of time. Over the years Semicha for various reasons has become almost a joke to them for many reasons. Among them:
There are and were many Poskim who do not have actual Semicha ( the Chafetz Chaim did not get one until after he wrote the Mishne Brurah!). On the other hand, there are many Musmchim (ordained rabbis) who are clueless!
I am pretty sure that Chaim Berlin does not give Yoreh Yoreh. If you have learned there long enough and have shown yourself to be adept at it and fairly knowledgable, they will officially call you rabbi if you wish and you can go apply for Jobs as one.
Lubavitch (I'm told by some Shelichim I know) has a similar approach. When they go out to outlying communties they can call themselves Rabbi without ever getting Semicha. I realize that Lubavitch does give a real Semicha, but a Shaliach without Semicha often identifies himself as a Rabbi to those communities in which he is do Kiruv.
In fact many Yeshivos have such a policy. They give "Rav uManhig" to any afternoon school teacher who learns in the yeshiva and needs to be called 'rabbi' by his students.
Add to this that many people have been given Smicha in the past who are relatively ignorant... and that there are so many Semicha factories in Israel that will give it to just about anyone who wants one with minimal effort …which has the added attarction for someone to say "I received Semicha in Israel!" (sounds even better than getting Smicha in the US doesn't it?)... and Semicha has been totally cheapened. Is it any wonder why so few Right Wing students pursue it today?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Believing in God
There is an interesting post today on Existential Angst. XGH tells us:
“I have made it my business over the past year or so to ask frum people why they believe in God. I have asked Modern Orthodox people and I have asked Chareidi people. I have asked young people and I have asked old people. I have asked laymen and I have asked Rabbis. And not just any old Rabbis, but Rabbis with phds from Ivy League schools.”
His results so far are the following:
"EVERY SINGLE PERSON, UNDER PERSISTENT QUESTIONING, TURNS OUT TO HAVE NO GOOD BASIS FOR THEIR BELIEF."
That led me to try and present my own and current perspective on this question. In stating it, I do not really intend to get into a debate with atheists or agnostics. It is a “no win” proposition. Many atheists are very bright and well read and many of their questions do not have answers that will satisfy them. In most cases they demand proof. And proof is impossible. All they see is evidence to the contrary.
As an aside, from a believing perpsective, our Mesorah tells us that proof of God’s existence would eliminate Bechira Chofshis, the freedom to choose belief or non belief... right from wrong etc. We must be given such freedom in order to be able to live up to God’s “test”. This means that God put us on this earth and gave us free will in order to see if we will do His bidding. Without that free will, it would not be a test and there would be no purpose for our existence.
Why He did that? ...Why did He create us in order to test us? I don’t think man can know the answer to that question. Perhaps the Baalei Machshava, Jewish thinkers and philosophers, can help us here.
But in any case, I thought it might be helpful to state my perspective to those who are grappling with this issue who are on the so called fence about belief in God. There are some individuals who want to believe... but cannot think of any reason to. To those people, I present my perspective.
There is one caveat with this post. I will reject any attempt to promote Kefira, or Atheism, in the comments section. While I encourage any atheist who wishes to comment to do so, I will not entertain any attempts by them to convince others of the legitimacy of their position of denying God’s existence. This blog does not allow that. This is an Emunah blog, as the name suggests, not a Kefira blog. With that in mind, I present the following which is more or less off the top of my head.
Why do I believe? It has nothing to do with proof and everything to do with logic and probabilities.
1) Existence of the physical universe cannot have logically self generated. It is intellectually unsatisfying to say that matter was just 'always there'. It is much more logical to say that it was created. There must be a First Cause. That First Cause is the Creator. (Call Him by any name.) To ask the question always heard from atheists "Well,who caused (or created) God then?" is silly. If 'God' was caused (created) by an "Earlier Cause" then he isn't God. His Creator is. At some point there has to be a First Cause. That is who God is.
And since we cannot detect him with any of the 5 physical senses, He must be outside the physical universe. Once you deduce that there must be a Creator and that by definition He must be in another universe (for lack of a better definition, let us call it the spiritual universe) it becomes clearer and more rational to comprehend how the physical universe came into being and why we can’t prove a Creator’s existence.
2) The near infinite unlikelihood of the random development of the entire physical universe in all its radiant glory, majesty, and complexity, including and especially the biological species with man as the most complex.
3) Even if one isn't sure, since God cannot be proven or disproven, why not err on the side of caution? What if He does exist?
These 3 points do not tell us the validity of Judaism over any other religion. And the last point only suggests that if God exists, He probably had a purpose for creation. And this in turn suggests that He wants us to follow His will. And flowing from this is that following His will has consequences... good ones if we do and bad ones if we don’t. By erring on the side of caution, we do His bidding and avoid the possible negative consequences of not doing His bidding.
What does God want from man? That is the subject of every religion that believes in a Creator that cares about His creations.
Judaism believes that the word of God is contained in scripture as dictated to Moses at Sinai and written in the Torah, the five books of Moses. Other faith communities have their own understanding of God’s will.
Why do I believe in the Torah over what others believe? That is beyond the scope of this essay. But it is clear to me that: 1) There is a God . 2)He is actively involved in our lives. And 3)He wants us to follow His will.
“I have made it my business over the past year or so to ask frum people why they believe in God. I have asked Modern Orthodox people and I have asked Chareidi people. I have asked young people and I have asked old people. I have asked laymen and I have asked Rabbis. And not just any old Rabbis, but Rabbis with phds from Ivy League schools.”
His results so far are the following:
"EVERY SINGLE PERSON, UNDER PERSISTENT QUESTIONING, TURNS OUT TO HAVE NO GOOD BASIS FOR THEIR BELIEF."
That led me to try and present my own and current perspective on this question. In stating it, I do not really intend to get into a debate with atheists or agnostics. It is a “no win” proposition. Many atheists are very bright and well read and many of their questions do not have answers that will satisfy them. In most cases they demand proof. And proof is impossible. All they see is evidence to the contrary.
As an aside, from a believing perpsective, our Mesorah tells us that proof of God’s existence would eliminate Bechira Chofshis, the freedom to choose belief or non belief... right from wrong etc. We must be given such freedom in order to be able to live up to God’s “test”. This means that God put us on this earth and gave us free will in order to see if we will do His bidding. Without that free will, it would not be a test and there would be no purpose for our existence.
Why He did that? ...Why did He create us in order to test us? I don’t think man can know the answer to that question. Perhaps the Baalei Machshava, Jewish thinkers and philosophers, can help us here.
But in any case, I thought it might be helpful to state my perspective to those who are grappling with this issue who are on the so called fence about belief in God. There are some individuals who want to believe... but cannot think of any reason to. To those people, I present my perspective.
There is one caveat with this post. I will reject any attempt to promote Kefira, or Atheism, in the comments section. While I encourage any atheist who wishes to comment to do so, I will not entertain any attempts by them to convince others of the legitimacy of their position of denying God’s existence. This blog does not allow that. This is an Emunah blog, as the name suggests, not a Kefira blog. With that in mind, I present the following which is more or less off the top of my head.
Why do I believe? It has nothing to do with proof and everything to do with logic and probabilities.
1) Existence of the physical universe cannot have logically self generated. It is intellectually unsatisfying to say that matter was just 'always there'. It is much more logical to say that it was created. There must be a First Cause. That First Cause is the Creator. (Call Him by any name.) To ask the question always heard from atheists "Well,who caused (or created) God then?" is silly. If 'God' was caused (created) by an "Earlier Cause" then he isn't God. His Creator is. At some point there has to be a First Cause. That is who God is.
And since we cannot detect him with any of the 5 physical senses, He must be outside the physical universe. Once you deduce that there must be a Creator and that by definition He must be in another universe (for lack of a better definition, let us call it the spiritual universe) it becomes clearer and more rational to comprehend how the physical universe came into being and why we can’t prove a Creator’s existence.
2) The near infinite unlikelihood of the random development of the entire physical universe in all its radiant glory, majesty, and complexity, including and especially the biological species with man as the most complex.
3) Even if one isn't sure, since God cannot be proven or disproven, why not err on the side of caution? What if He does exist?
These 3 points do not tell us the validity of Judaism over any other religion. And the last point only suggests that if God exists, He probably had a purpose for creation. And this in turn suggests that He wants us to follow His will. And flowing from this is that following His will has consequences... good ones if we do and bad ones if we don’t. By erring on the side of caution, we do His bidding and avoid the possible negative consequences of not doing His bidding.
What does God want from man? That is the subject of every religion that believes in a Creator that cares about His creations.
Judaism believes that the word of God is contained in scripture as dictated to Moses at Sinai and written in the Torah, the five books of Moses. Other faith communities have their own understanding of God’s will.
Why do I believe in the Torah over what others believe? That is beyond the scope of this essay. But it is clear to me that: 1) There is a God . 2)He is actively involved in our lives. And 3)He wants us to follow His will.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
An Earthquake in Israel
The Status Quo was an agreement reached between Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the Rabbi Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, the acknowledged leader of the Lithuanian Jewry in
But many store owners just ignored the Status Quo arrangement and have kept their stores open on Shabbos. The Charedi contingent in the Knesset has over time tried to enforce it and they have met with mixed results. The most recent success was the El Al boycott.
I have never been a fan of religious coercion. I believe that to the extent that there is any large scale anti religious feelings amongst the populace in
I understand the reason that the religious segments of Jewry (including until now the NRP) have fought so hard for to keep the Status Quo agreements in place. The argument is that
But the real issue is not whether... Torah law in
Those who do the forcing, obviously think that the 'vinegar' approach is a necessary one. It is after all a 'life saving' elixir.
For the first time in
So how can a religious group like the NRP support anything like this? The answer is: I’m not sure. There is something troubling about changing an existing definition of Shabbos which is Halachic into one which is not Halachic. But that being said, it is also understandable.
An article in Ha’aretz points out that the status quo arrangement with respect to Shabbos is completely ignored by anyone who wishes to ignore it. More now than ever. What this bill does is formalize the real status quo.
‘The Israeli Sabbath is a sober example of the irrelevance of the so-called status quo. Some 230,000 Israelis work on Saturdays in commercial centers, which are visited by some 40 percent of the population who have an annual consumption rate of more than
As would be expected Charedi leadership in
Maybe the opposite will happen. This new approach can over time change the feeling by secular Jews of being coerced. The feeling of hatred can thus be reduced over time. Maybe even eliminated. This can open up doors here-to-fore closed to Kiruv. By eliminating the ‘vinegar’ we can try a new ‘honey’ approach. The net result can be that instead of increasing Chilul Shabbos, it can actually be reduced.
The hatred may not turn into love over night, but at least it has a better chance of changing in that direction. If one looks at the religious/secular relationships in
Frankly, it may not be such a bad idea.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Radicalizing Jerusalem
The Jewish character of Jerusalem is at stake. At this moment in time there is an ongoing metamorphosis taking place that has many ramifications. What I am talking about is the Charedization of the city. The question is, is that a good thing or a bad one. The answer is not as simple as one might think. An article in the Los Angeles Times spells out some of the issues.
That the Torah is a guiding principle in the holy cityof Jerusalem is of primary importance. Without our Torah, there is no Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh. We could then hardly make any more legitimate claims to the city than the Arabs do. But whose Torah is it? Does it belong only to those whose Hashkafos are so right wing that they chase away the more moderate, modern Orthodox Jews? That is what seems to be happening.
As Charedim are moving in, so are the Modern Orthodox and secular Jews moving out.. And that is not a good thing. Secular Jews and Modern Orthodox Jews provide a vital economic base for the city. When that economic base moves away, the city suffers. No amount of Charedi residents who move in can overcome the devastation caused by a down turn in Jerusalem’s economic viability. The opposite is true.
More welfare recipients plus a reduction in the the tax base is a disaster in the making. The fact is, as the article accurately points out, that Charedim receive a huge proportion of the city’s financial benefits in the form of government subsidies and cities services and contribute the least amount of tax dollars. If there is no tax base, where is the money going to come from to continue providing the vital city services let alone the welfare checks?
I have no problem with Charedim increasing their numbers in Jerusalem. On the contrary I encourage it. But in the process, I would like to see them do it in a way that doesn’t discourage the mass exodus of its primary tax paying citizens. Right now it seems like the modern Orthodox along with the secular are leaving in droves precisely because of their experiences with this Charedization. And as I said, the very character of Jerusalem itself is at stake.
One might ask, well… What about the secular Jews? Why not get rid of the secular Jews from the holy city? What’s wrong with that? Who needs them? !
Terrible attitude.
If I understand correctly, most secular Jews are not anti-religious. They are just secular. Most of them want to just be left alone to live their lives without interference. Many of them feel culturally Jewish. They live their Judaism and even practice some of the rituals. They may not be observant but, they still have a Pesach Seder. They might keep minimally kosher. They might even fast on Yom Kippur. They are what might be called Masorati. Not the Conservative version of that, just … what the name implies: They observe some of what they saw by their parents or grandparents and actually feel good about that. These are the ones who have a chance to be won over to more observance if treated properly.
Yes, there are secular Israelis that are actively anti Torah. But I think most are not… until, they experience a negative religious experience. Then they might become radicalized and anti-Torah. Events like taking over a newly built police station (albeit legally) and turning it into a Charedi kindergarten would tend to do that. That should never have happened.
As for the Modern Orthodox in Jerusalem, there is absolutely no excuse for chasing them out. True, they aren’t doing it by running after them with a shotgun, but they are doing it. Radical events like those described in this article which have also been addressed here are doing exactly that. Beating up women on buses, even if the 'beating' is only verbal let alone physical, will almost certainly chase away the modern Orthodox along with their tax dollars.
What does it accomplish in the end? It radicalizes the city into becoming one of the most extremist religious cities in the world. Jerusalem does not need to be extreme to maintain its character is a holy city. Extremism does not equal holiness. But don’t tell that to some militant Charedim who are intent on taking over the city and making it into their own image by beating up defenseless women on a bus. They frame such actions as a holy obligation. But it is instead an unholy Chilul HaShem. I am not a big fan of Naomi Ragen but I totally agree with her here. In talking about Charedim in Jerusalem she said:
"People here misconstrue Jewish law, radicalize it beyond recognition and call that 'being more religious,' "
What is interesting is that in one sense (if not more) the culture of devout Arab Muslims and that of Charedim are more similar to each other, than are Charedim to the Modern Orthodox. The manner of dress of devout Muslim women and that of the most devout of Charedim are not that dissimilar. The standards of the newly established Charedi Tznius Courts differ little from standards of Tznius courts of radical Muslim cultures in places like Iran.
It is pretty certain that if birth rates and rates influx of devout Muslims and Charedim continue as they are now, the Charedim will outnumber the Modern Orthodox, the Modern Orthodox will outnumber the secular Jews. And the Muslim Arabs will out number everyone! A radicalized Jerusalem… no tax base... greater numbers of welfare recipients... an exodus of moderate Jews... where will they get the money to function at all?
But… not to worry. They can save money by combining Tznius Beis Dins.
That the Torah is a guiding principle in the holy cityof Jerusalem is of primary importance. Without our Torah, there is no Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh. We could then hardly make any more legitimate claims to the city than the Arabs do. But whose Torah is it? Does it belong only to those whose Hashkafos are so right wing that they chase away the more moderate, modern Orthodox Jews? That is what seems to be happening.
As Charedim are moving in, so are the Modern Orthodox and secular Jews moving out.. And that is not a good thing. Secular Jews and Modern Orthodox Jews provide a vital economic base for the city. When that economic base moves away, the city suffers. No amount of Charedi residents who move in can overcome the devastation caused by a down turn in Jerusalem’s economic viability. The opposite is true.
More welfare recipients plus a reduction in the the tax base is a disaster in the making. The fact is, as the article accurately points out, that Charedim receive a huge proportion of the city’s financial benefits in the form of government subsidies and cities services and contribute the least amount of tax dollars. If there is no tax base, where is the money going to come from to continue providing the vital city services let alone the welfare checks?
I have no problem with Charedim increasing their numbers in Jerusalem. On the contrary I encourage it. But in the process, I would like to see them do it in a way that doesn’t discourage the mass exodus of its primary tax paying citizens. Right now it seems like the modern Orthodox along with the secular are leaving in droves precisely because of their experiences with this Charedization. And as I said, the very character of Jerusalem itself is at stake.
One might ask, well… What about the secular Jews? Why not get rid of the secular Jews from the holy city? What’s wrong with that? Who needs them? !
Terrible attitude.
If I understand correctly, most secular Jews are not anti-religious. They are just secular. Most of them want to just be left alone to live their lives without interference. Many of them feel culturally Jewish. They live their Judaism and even practice some of the rituals. They may not be observant but, they still have a Pesach Seder. They might keep minimally kosher. They might even fast on Yom Kippur. They are what might be called Masorati. Not the Conservative version of that, just … what the name implies: They observe some of what they saw by their parents or grandparents and actually feel good about that. These are the ones who have a chance to be won over to more observance if treated properly.
Yes, there are secular Israelis that are actively anti Torah. But I think most are not… until, they experience a negative religious experience. Then they might become radicalized and anti-Torah. Events like taking over a newly built police station (albeit legally) and turning it into a Charedi kindergarten would tend to do that. That should never have happened.
As for the Modern Orthodox in Jerusalem, there is absolutely no excuse for chasing them out. True, they aren’t doing it by running after them with a shotgun, but they are doing it. Radical events like those described in this article which have also been addressed here are doing exactly that. Beating up women on buses, even if the 'beating' is only verbal let alone physical, will almost certainly chase away the modern Orthodox along with their tax dollars.
What does it accomplish in the end? It radicalizes the city into becoming one of the most extremist religious cities in the world. Jerusalem does not need to be extreme to maintain its character is a holy city. Extremism does not equal holiness. But don’t tell that to some militant Charedim who are intent on taking over the city and making it into their own image by beating up defenseless women on a bus. They frame such actions as a holy obligation. But it is instead an unholy Chilul HaShem. I am not a big fan of Naomi Ragen but I totally agree with her here. In talking about Charedim in Jerusalem she said:
"People here misconstrue Jewish law, radicalize it beyond recognition and call that 'being more religious,' "
What is interesting is that in one sense (if not more) the culture of devout Arab Muslims and that of Charedim are more similar to each other, than are Charedim to the Modern Orthodox. The manner of dress of devout Muslim women and that of the most devout of Charedim are not that dissimilar. The standards of the newly established Charedi Tznius Courts differ little from standards of Tznius courts of radical Muslim cultures in places like Iran.
It is pretty certain that if birth rates and rates influx of devout Muslims and Charedim continue as they are now, the Charedim will outnumber the Modern Orthodox, the Modern Orthodox will outnumber the secular Jews. And the Muslim Arabs will out number everyone! A radicalized Jerusalem… no tax base... greater numbers of welfare recipients... an exodus of moderate Jews... where will they get the money to function at all?
But… not to worry. They can save money by combining Tznius Beis Dins.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Hakaras HaTov to the Academy
The Ida Crown Jewish Academy is a co-educational Modern Orthodox high school here in Chicago. It was established well over sixty years ago.
It was created when there was no formal Jewish education to speak of in an era when Jewish assimilation was at the mercy of the ‘melting pot’ culture of the times. The climate for a Torah way of life was less than ideal and the outlook for the future seemed dismal. So the Rabanim of that era decided to do something about it. They rightly believed that the only way to perpetuate Torah Judiasm was to create an atmosphere that inculcated Torah values. And the best way to do that was through education.
But they also needed to speak to the times. It was a sort of Eis La’asos… a so called ‘time to act’. The only way to attract both students and their parent was to offer them a comparable alternative to secular education and environment of the public school system. And so The Chicago Jewish Academy (later re-named Ida Crown at the behest of a major Jewish philanthropist) was born.
This is the school that all of Torah Jewry in Chicago sent their children. There was no secular department at the Chicago Yeshiva, The Hebrew Theological College, which was formed decades earlier. HTC was designed to produce modern Orthodox rabbis post high school. They did not have a secular studies department. At some point they started accepting high school aged boys and those boys attended the Academy for their secular studies. But even then the secular studies department was not independently accredited. It was accredited only through the Academy as a branch. This is where my own high school diploma is from. It was the mid sixties by the time HTC had a fully accredited high school.
But mine isn’t the only diploma from the Academy. The Rosh HaYeshiva of arguably the biggest Yeshiva in Israel, if not the world has an Academy diploma as well. And he not only has a diploma from there, he actually attended the school. But I’m sure that Academy graduate and Mir Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, doesn’t talk about that too much these days.
Not that I would expect him to. What occasion after all would he have to bring it up? But the question is would he bring it up at all, even if the occasion would demand it? I think he would. But I think that would be the exception to the rule. The prevailing attitude in Charedi circles both in Israel and in America is that Taruvos …co-education… is Assur, especially in today’s Torah world. We are so far removed from the Orthodox America of yesterday’s Eis La’asos that the Torah world can no longer countenance a co-educational high school. But that doesn’t mean they wont utilize it when they need to.
I understand their reluctance. And I agree with their reservations about a co-educational high school facility in our day. I’m sure that the rabbinic leaders would agree that it was a necessary ‘evil’ in the days before a Torah climate had established itself on these shores. And I even agree that the time for that type of school has passed as a ‘first choice’ option for adolescents. I’ve written about the reasons before.
Basically I think the distraction of the opposite sex in the classroom, and the casual interaction between the sexes as a whole in that environment combined with the heightened libido of the typical teenager makes for at best a distraction from studies and at worst a very dangerous threat for serious Erva violations.
The counter argument from many serious and committed Orthodox Jews is that a co-educational facility will better acculturate these adolescents in how to deal with the opposite sex. They will better be able to learn the social graces and how to get along. By interacting with the opposite sex, they are better conditioned to the real world and learn how to live in it. It is also true that adolescents become better prepared for dating. A lot of the awkwardness experienced by a typical Yeshiva Bachur not having undergone this kind of socialization is eliminated, for the most part.
But I would counter there are other ways to do it that do not require co-education. One can learn how to interact with the opposite sex in social environments outside of the classroom. And in fact I believe they should be given opportunities to do so. But that is for another post. This post is about the Academy type school.
Co-educational high school schools are very much an important part of our educational system. There is a need by some students for that type of structure if they are going to survive as observant Jews. And there are many scenarios that qualify for that, such as the Modern Orthodox family that would only send to a religious high school if it were co-educational.
And it is of no less importance to Charedi parents. The ‘Kids at Risk’ phenomenon comes into play here. There are some students from even in the best of Charedi families that have children who simply cannot hack it in the austere environment of a yeshiva high school. The tendency for such young people to simply drop out is too great. And it’s happened in many some cases that I personally know about, and I’m sure there are many others that I don’t. There are Charedi children that were literally saved by this school.
The Charedi Rabbanim who constitute the leadership of the Vaad HaChinuch at Hanna Sacks Beis Yaakov can testify to that. One of those Rabbanim has more than once placed a call to the principal of Ida Crown to see if an about to be expelled teenage girl would be accepted by them. To the best of my knowledge, the Academy has always done so. And to the best of my knowledge most if not all of these young women have remained Shomer Shabbos and are integrated into the wider Torah community both here in Chicago and elsewhere.
But what disturbed me is the following story. In the course of one of those conversations the principal of the Academy asked the Charedi Rav whether he would be willing to express his Hakaras HaTov publicly at their annual banquet as a guest speaker. He flatly turned them down!
Of course I understand his reluctance. How can a card carrying ultra-Orthodox Rav who strongly identifies with the Agudah Hashkafa dare to stand up and speak at a co-educational high school banquet? How would it look? What message would it send? It would be as if he is endorsing an institution that the Gedolim have said is Assur. Nope. He can’t do it. But under the table, well… wink wink, it’s OK. “Shhh… Don’t say I had anything to do with this.”
Perhaps privately he will tell you that it was the right decision for a particular young adolescent. I don’t know. But I think it is high time for our rabbinic leaders to express Hakaras Hatov publicly as well. There is a time and a place for everything. The Academy does not teach their students to do Aveiros. They teach them Torah and Halacha. Ask Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel.
The environment isn’t perfect? It’s Assur to send an adolescent to that school? Let’s hope they don’t have to find out the hard way that it isn’t always so Assur. There are Charedi Rabbanim who did find out that way. Some of them chose the option of Chanoch L’Naar Al Pi Darko. And they chose wisely. Those who didn’t? Well you may be reading about them in the next issue of the Jewish Observer dealing with ‘Kids at Risk’.
It was created when there was no formal Jewish education to speak of in an era when Jewish assimilation was at the mercy of the ‘melting pot’ culture of the times. The climate for a Torah way of life was less than ideal and the outlook for the future seemed dismal. So the Rabanim of that era decided to do something about it. They rightly believed that the only way to perpetuate Torah Judiasm was to create an atmosphere that inculcated Torah values. And the best way to do that was through education.
But they also needed to speak to the times. It was a sort of Eis La’asos… a so called ‘time to act’. The only way to attract both students and their parent was to offer them a comparable alternative to secular education and environment of the public school system. And so The Chicago Jewish Academy (later re-named Ida Crown at the behest of a major Jewish philanthropist) was born.
This is the school that all of Torah Jewry in Chicago sent their children. There was no secular department at the Chicago Yeshiva, The Hebrew Theological College, which was formed decades earlier. HTC was designed to produce modern Orthodox rabbis post high school. They did not have a secular studies department. At some point they started accepting high school aged boys and those boys attended the Academy for their secular studies. But even then the secular studies department was not independently accredited. It was accredited only through the Academy as a branch. This is where my own high school diploma is from. It was the mid sixties by the time HTC had a fully accredited high school.
But mine isn’t the only diploma from the Academy. The Rosh HaYeshiva of arguably the biggest Yeshiva in Israel, if not the world has an Academy diploma as well. And he not only has a diploma from there, he actually attended the school. But I’m sure that Academy graduate and Mir Rosh HaYeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, doesn’t talk about that too much these days.
Not that I would expect him to. What occasion after all would he have to bring it up? But the question is would he bring it up at all, even if the occasion would demand it? I think he would. But I think that would be the exception to the rule. The prevailing attitude in Charedi circles both in Israel and in America is that Taruvos …co-education… is Assur, especially in today’s Torah world. We are so far removed from the Orthodox America of yesterday’s Eis La’asos that the Torah world can no longer countenance a co-educational high school. But that doesn’t mean they wont utilize it when they need to.
I understand their reluctance. And I agree with their reservations about a co-educational high school facility in our day. I’m sure that the rabbinic leaders would agree that it was a necessary ‘evil’ in the days before a Torah climate had established itself on these shores. And I even agree that the time for that type of school has passed as a ‘first choice’ option for adolescents. I’ve written about the reasons before.
Basically I think the distraction of the opposite sex in the classroom, and the casual interaction between the sexes as a whole in that environment combined with the heightened libido of the typical teenager makes for at best a distraction from studies and at worst a very dangerous threat for serious Erva violations.
The counter argument from many serious and committed Orthodox Jews is that a co-educational facility will better acculturate these adolescents in how to deal with the opposite sex. They will better be able to learn the social graces and how to get along. By interacting with the opposite sex, they are better conditioned to the real world and learn how to live in it. It is also true that adolescents become better prepared for dating. A lot of the awkwardness experienced by a typical Yeshiva Bachur not having undergone this kind of socialization is eliminated, for the most part.
But I would counter there are other ways to do it that do not require co-education. One can learn how to interact with the opposite sex in social environments outside of the classroom. And in fact I believe they should be given opportunities to do so. But that is for another post. This post is about the Academy type school.
Co-educational high school schools are very much an important part of our educational system. There is a need by some students for that type of structure if they are going to survive as observant Jews. And there are many scenarios that qualify for that, such as the Modern Orthodox family that would only send to a religious high school if it were co-educational.
And it is of no less importance to Charedi parents. The ‘Kids at Risk’ phenomenon comes into play here. There are some students from even in the best of Charedi families that have children who simply cannot hack it in the austere environment of a yeshiva high school. The tendency for such young people to simply drop out is too great. And it’s happened in many some cases that I personally know about, and I’m sure there are many others that I don’t. There are Charedi children that were literally saved by this school.
The Charedi Rabbanim who constitute the leadership of the Vaad HaChinuch at Hanna Sacks Beis Yaakov can testify to that. One of those Rabbanim has more than once placed a call to the principal of Ida Crown to see if an about to be expelled teenage girl would be accepted by them. To the best of my knowledge, the Academy has always done so. And to the best of my knowledge most if not all of these young women have remained Shomer Shabbos and are integrated into the wider Torah community both here in Chicago and elsewhere.
But what disturbed me is the following story. In the course of one of those conversations the principal of the Academy asked the Charedi Rav whether he would be willing to express his Hakaras HaTov publicly at their annual banquet as a guest speaker. He flatly turned them down!
Of course I understand his reluctance. How can a card carrying ultra-Orthodox Rav who strongly identifies with the Agudah Hashkafa dare to stand up and speak at a co-educational high school banquet? How would it look? What message would it send? It would be as if he is endorsing an institution that the Gedolim have said is Assur. Nope. He can’t do it. But under the table, well… wink wink, it’s OK. “Shhh… Don’t say I had anything to do with this.”
Perhaps privately he will tell you that it was the right decision for a particular young adolescent. I don’t know. But I think it is high time for our rabbinic leaders to express Hakaras Hatov publicly as well. There is a time and a place for everything. The Academy does not teach their students to do Aveiros. They teach them Torah and Halacha. Ask Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel.
The environment isn’t perfect? It’s Assur to send an adolescent to that school? Let’s hope they don’t have to find out the hard way that it isn’t always so Assur. There are Charedi Rabbanim who did find out that way. Some of them chose the option of Chanoch L’Naar Al Pi Darko. And they chose wisely. Those who didn’t? Well you may be reading about them in the next issue of the Jewish Observer dealing with ‘Kids at Risk’.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Must Men Wear a Yarmulke?
One of the Halachos that I have the most difficulty with is hair covering. Married women are required by Halacha to cover their hair. It is considered Erva… nakedness. That is a strange Halacha which I have never really understood.
Hair equals nakedness?! Does anyone get Hirhurim when looking at hair? And more importantly, what’s the difference between the hair of an unmarried young woman and the hair of a married woman? An un-married woman has no Halachic requirement to cover her hair. A married woman must. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of that.
The fact is that there is no direct commandment in the Torah to cover the hair of a married woman. The Gemarah in Sotah tells us we derive it from scripture. When speaking about the procedure of the Sotah (a married woman suspected of having an affair) the Torah, states: “The Kohen shall uncover the head of the woman” (Numbers 5:18). This teaches that married women cover their hair. And the Gemarah then tells us that covering hair is a D’Oraisa… a biblical level Halacha.
I’ve posted at least twice on this issue on the issue of hair covering for women and why I have such a problem with it. See here and here. But, what about men?
Are men required to cover their hair too? Of course for men it is not about hair being Erva. It is about covering the head, usually with a Yarmulkee (sometimes called a Kipa).
Let’s take a look at the soures.
We find references to it in the Gemarah: Men should cover their heads in order to have the fear of heaven upon them (Shabbos156B). But is this a Halachic requirement? Or is it just a Midas Chasidus, a pious act?
The Gemarah addresses the issue indirectly. We are told (Kidushin 31A) that Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua never walked more than four Amos (cubits) without a head covering saying, “The Shechina is above my head” and “Covering my head protects me from sinning”.
The Rambam tells us in his “Guide” and in his “Yad” that our sages were always careful to cover their heads because the Shechina (God’s presence) hovered above them and covered them.
There is also the Gemarah in Brachos (60B) which tells us the specific Bracha recited every morning for covering the head: “Oter Yiroel B’ Sifarah”: … Blessed art Thou… Who crowns Israel with glory. This is a reference to covering the head.
Does any of this mean that covering the head is a Halachic requirement? Or is it only a pious act? Not required by Halacha.
According to a vast number of Poskim, wearing a Yarmulke is only a pious act. They conclude this from the fact that Chazal praised those who would take care to not walk 4 Amos without a head covering. Why praise someone for simply following Halacha? The praise must have been for going beyond Halacha. A partial list of these Poskim include: Maharshal, Tashbatz, Darkei Moshe, Prisha, Magen Avraham, Birkei Yosef, Bach, and Rabbi E. Kramer.
Rabbi Kramer reasons that when the Anshei Kensesses HaGedolah (The men of the Great Assembly who formalized prayer at about the time of Ezra) created those Brachos, they put them in a specific order. The Bracha of “Oter Yisroel B’ Sifarah” is stated after other Brachos are made. Certainly had head covering been required, this Bracha would be one of the first.
On the other hand there are those Poskim who say that head covering for a man is a Halachic requirement. These Poskim include; Mahari Bruna, Daas Ha-Itur, Tur, and Tzemach Tzedek. They explain the praise in the Gemarah given to those Amaraim was not for the basic Halachic requirement, but for wearing an additional head covering on top of it.
The Taz (OC 8:3) however offer a novel ruling. He says that in those societies which require their citizens to remove their hats as a sign of respect, it becomes a matter of Halacha: U’VeChikoseham Lo Selechu: Do not walk in the their ways (i.e. the ways of idolators) More recent Poskim like the Chasam Sofer (CM: 191) and the Shar HaTzion to the Mishna Brurah (OC 2:17) say that even the GRA who holds that it is only a Pious act would agree that in our circumstance it is a matter of Halacha to not follow this practice and instead to always wear a Yarmulkee.
Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that indeed based on the Gemarah it is not a Halcaha and it is only a pious act. But based on the Taz, it is has become in our day a matter of Halacha.
But this Halachic requirement has built in Heterim for not to wearing one in certain instances. For example Rav Moshe holds that if one is required by his school or profession to not wear a Yarmulke one is not required to do so, as long as he doesn’t do it because of Chukas Hagoy and comports himself otherwise like a religious Jew.
I wonder though whether in our day and in America, removing one’s hat is a still considered a sign of honor. Our society recognizes that we are a nation of immigrants each with our own customs. Ironically it would seem that the fact that one can now even wear a Yarmulke in a courtroom or in the armed services… that it is removed from being considered Chukas HaGoy.
I would think therefore that perhaps wearing a Yarmulke should revert to being a Midas Chasidus, a pious act and no longer be considered a Halachic requirement at all.
Please note: By no means am I advocating the abandonment of wearing a Yarmulke. This essay is only meant as an exercise in Halachic thought.
Primary Source: Torah L’Daas
Hair equals nakedness?! Does anyone get Hirhurim when looking at hair? And more importantly, what’s the difference between the hair of an unmarried young woman and the hair of a married woman? An un-married woman has no Halachic requirement to cover her hair. A married woman must. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of that.
The fact is that there is no direct commandment in the Torah to cover the hair of a married woman. The Gemarah in Sotah tells us we derive it from scripture. When speaking about the procedure of the Sotah (a married woman suspected of having an affair) the Torah, states: “The Kohen shall uncover the head of the woman” (Numbers 5:18). This teaches that married women cover their hair. And the Gemarah then tells us that covering hair is a D’Oraisa… a biblical level Halacha.
I’ve posted at least twice on this issue on the issue of hair covering for women and why I have such a problem with it. See here and here. But, what about men?
Are men required to cover their hair too? Of course for men it is not about hair being Erva. It is about covering the head, usually with a Yarmulkee (sometimes called a Kipa).
Let’s take a look at the soures.
We find references to it in the Gemarah: Men should cover their heads in order to have the fear of heaven upon them (Shabbos156B). But is this a Halachic requirement? Or is it just a Midas Chasidus, a pious act?
The Gemarah addresses the issue indirectly. We are told (Kidushin 31A) that Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua never walked more than four Amos (cubits) without a head covering saying, “The Shechina is above my head” and “Covering my head protects me from sinning”.
The Rambam tells us in his “Guide” and in his “Yad” that our sages were always careful to cover their heads because the Shechina (God’s presence) hovered above them and covered them.
There is also the Gemarah in Brachos (60B) which tells us the specific Bracha recited every morning for covering the head: “Oter Yiroel B’ Sifarah”: … Blessed art Thou… Who crowns Israel with glory. This is a reference to covering the head.
Does any of this mean that covering the head is a Halachic requirement? Or is it only a pious act? Not required by Halacha.
According to a vast number of Poskim, wearing a Yarmulke is only a pious act. They conclude this from the fact that Chazal praised those who would take care to not walk 4 Amos without a head covering. Why praise someone for simply following Halacha? The praise must have been for going beyond Halacha. A partial list of these Poskim include: Maharshal, Tashbatz, Darkei Moshe, Prisha, Magen Avraham, Birkei Yosef, Bach, and Rabbi E. Kramer.
Rabbi Kramer reasons that when the Anshei Kensesses HaGedolah (The men of the Great Assembly who formalized prayer at about the time of Ezra) created those Brachos, they put them in a specific order. The Bracha of “Oter Yisroel B’ Sifarah” is stated after other Brachos are made. Certainly had head covering been required, this Bracha would be one of the first.
On the other hand there are those Poskim who say that head covering for a man is a Halachic requirement. These Poskim include; Mahari Bruna, Daas Ha-Itur, Tur, and Tzemach Tzedek. They explain the praise in the Gemarah given to those Amaraim was not for the basic Halachic requirement, but for wearing an additional head covering on top of it.
The Taz (OC 8:3) however offer a novel ruling. He says that in those societies which require their citizens to remove their hats as a sign of respect, it becomes a matter of Halacha: U’VeChikoseham Lo Selechu: Do not walk in the their ways (i.e. the ways of idolators) More recent Poskim like the Chasam Sofer (CM: 191) and the Shar HaTzion to the Mishna Brurah (OC 2:17) say that even the GRA who holds that it is only a Pious act would agree that in our circumstance it is a matter of Halacha to not follow this practice and instead to always wear a Yarmulkee.
Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that indeed based on the Gemarah it is not a Halcaha and it is only a pious act. But based on the Taz, it is has become in our day a matter of Halacha.
But this Halachic requirement has built in Heterim for not to wearing one in certain instances. For example Rav Moshe holds that if one is required by his school or profession to not wear a Yarmulke one is not required to do so, as long as he doesn’t do it because of Chukas Hagoy and comports himself otherwise like a religious Jew.
I wonder though whether in our day and in America, removing one’s hat is a still considered a sign of honor. Our society recognizes that we are a nation of immigrants each with our own customs. Ironically it would seem that the fact that one can now even wear a Yarmulke in a courtroom or in the armed services… that it is removed from being considered Chukas HaGoy.
I would think therefore that perhaps wearing a Yarmulke should revert to being a Midas Chasidus, a pious act and no longer be considered a Halachic requirement at all.
Please note: By no means am I advocating the abandonment of wearing a Yarmulke. This essay is only meant as an exercise in Halachic thought.
Primary Source: Torah L’Daas
Friday, June 01, 2007
The Disputation
He is not a household name amongst Torah Jewry. The name hardly registers a blip on the Orthodox radar screen. But he is quite a big name in the Conservative movement. Why should we care? Well we shouldn’t really. But his name has come up in a very interesting and perhaps significant context in the media. There are at least two articles, one in Time Magazine and one in the Forward, about an event involving this 74 year old rabbi that is quite fascinating if looked at historically.
His name is Jacob Neusner. He is a Conservative Rabbi. He is one of the foremost living scholars and thinkers of the Conservative movement, having been educated at Harvard, Oxford, and Columbia …in addition to The Jewish Theological Seminary where he was ordained. And a he is prolific writer having written or edited more than 900 books.
A quick perusal of his bio doesn’t conclusively reveal whether he can be classified as an Apikores. But when he writes, people pay attention. Professor Saul Lieberman, despite being on the faculty of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, was a believing and observant Jew who many acknowledge was a huge Talmid Chacham. He thought enough of Rabbi Neusner to publish critiques of his work.
What happened this week is that Pope Benedict also thought enough of Rabbi Neusner’s work to critique it. Pope Benedict devoted 20 pages of his new book to deal with Rabbi Neusners earlier book published in 1993 that disputes some very fundamental Christian beliefs about Jesus. From the Time article:
“Neusner asserted that any thoughtful Jew must conclude that Jesus was actually "abandoning the Torah" and reject him. He also suggested that insofar as Matthew's arguments are based in Jewish law, Christianity may be flawed by its own standards.”
He cites various reasons and proofs for those conclusions… most of which Orthodox Jews who know anything at all about Christian doctrine have themselves understood.
That a sitting Pope would now pay attention to those criticisms and try to answer them in a newly published book is a remarkable event and should not go unnoticed.
What’s the significance to us? Well, here is one thought that comes to mind. It shows a new respect for Judaism’s critiques of Christianity and addresses those critiques in a published work by its spiritual leader... for the first time (to the best of my knowledge) in its 2000 year old history. No longer do they dismiss age old questions... or just ignore or dodge them.
One of the more famous public disputes between the Church and Judaism came in the year 1263. King James of Aragon had arranged a debate between Nachmanidies, the Ramban, and Pablo Christiani, an apostate Jew who had converted to the Catholic Church.
The idea was Christiani’s and the purpose was to try and convert the Jews of Provence to Christianity. The Ramban was forced to participate. Christiani convinced King James that the Ramban’s fear of persecution if he offended the Church would cause his argument to be muted and that he, Chrisitiani would win the debate. It was presented in Barcelona in front of the King. There were a series of such debates. If I understand correctly historians generally acknowledge that the Ramban had won the deabte. But that’s not how the church presented it. They claimed victory. Furthermore they cited out of context quotes from the disputation which they asserted was blasphemous against the church, an offense then punishable by death. A sympathetic King James realized the falsity of those claims but to appease the church he instead exiled him.
But that is not how that same church handled a challenge by a Jewish Scholar today. Rabbi Neusner is no Ramban. But the Pope’s intellectual honesty didn’t allow him to ignore the proofs in Neusner’s book either. He had to answer the fundamental questions raised by a rabbi.
Whether Pope succeeded in answering the critiques or not is not the issue. The issue I think is how times have changed and how the relationship between the Church and Judaism has changed.
That said, I am not advocating theological dialogue between Judaism and other faiths. I defer to those greater than myself who have already Paskin’d that it is Assur to do that. But I can’t help wondering that if the Ramban’s disputation were held in a religious climate of the type that Pope Benedict finds himslef in today, whether a different result would have happened. Personally I think it would have changed the course of history in a major way. There likely would ultimately have been no inquisition, no holocaust, and much less if any anti-Semitism over the last millennium. Would that have made us better and more observant Jews? Or would it have accelerated our assimilation? I don’t know but it sure is interesting to think about.
His name is Jacob Neusner. He is a Conservative Rabbi. He is one of the foremost living scholars and thinkers of the Conservative movement, having been educated at Harvard, Oxford, and Columbia …in addition to The Jewish Theological Seminary where he was ordained. And a he is prolific writer having written or edited more than 900 books.
A quick perusal of his bio doesn’t conclusively reveal whether he can be classified as an Apikores. But when he writes, people pay attention. Professor Saul Lieberman, despite being on the faculty of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, was a believing and observant Jew who many acknowledge was a huge Talmid Chacham. He thought enough of Rabbi Neusner to publish critiques of his work.
What happened this week is that Pope Benedict also thought enough of Rabbi Neusner’s work to critique it. Pope Benedict devoted 20 pages of his new book to deal with Rabbi Neusners earlier book published in 1993 that disputes some very fundamental Christian beliefs about Jesus. From the Time article:
“Neusner asserted that any thoughtful Jew must conclude that Jesus was actually "abandoning the Torah" and reject him. He also suggested that insofar as Matthew's arguments are based in Jewish law, Christianity may be flawed by its own standards.”
He cites various reasons and proofs for those conclusions… most of which Orthodox Jews who know anything at all about Christian doctrine have themselves understood.
That a sitting Pope would now pay attention to those criticisms and try to answer them in a newly published book is a remarkable event and should not go unnoticed.
What’s the significance to us? Well, here is one thought that comes to mind. It shows a new respect for Judaism’s critiques of Christianity and addresses those critiques in a published work by its spiritual leader... for the first time (to the best of my knowledge) in its 2000 year old history. No longer do they dismiss age old questions... or just ignore or dodge them.
One of the more famous public disputes between the Church and Judaism came in the year 1263. King James of Aragon had arranged a debate between Nachmanidies, the Ramban, and Pablo Christiani, an apostate Jew who had converted to the Catholic Church.
The idea was Christiani’s and the purpose was to try and convert the Jews of Provence to Christianity. The Ramban was forced to participate. Christiani convinced King James that the Ramban’s fear of persecution if he offended the Church would cause his argument to be muted and that he, Chrisitiani would win the debate. It was presented in Barcelona in front of the King. There were a series of such debates. If I understand correctly historians generally acknowledge that the Ramban had won the deabte. But that’s not how the church presented it. They claimed victory. Furthermore they cited out of context quotes from the disputation which they asserted was blasphemous against the church, an offense then punishable by death. A sympathetic King James realized the falsity of those claims but to appease the church he instead exiled him.
But that is not how that same church handled a challenge by a Jewish Scholar today. Rabbi Neusner is no Ramban. But the Pope’s intellectual honesty didn’t allow him to ignore the proofs in Neusner’s book either. He had to answer the fundamental questions raised by a rabbi.
Whether Pope succeeded in answering the critiques or not is not the issue. The issue I think is how times have changed and how the relationship between the Church and Judaism has changed.
That said, I am not advocating theological dialogue between Judaism and other faiths. I defer to those greater than myself who have already Paskin’d that it is Assur to do that. But I can’t help wondering that if the Ramban’s disputation were held in a religious climate of the type that Pope Benedict finds himslef in today, whether a different result would have happened. Personally I think it would have changed the course of history in a major way. There likely would ultimately have been no inquisition, no holocaust, and much less if any anti-Semitism over the last millennium. Would that have made us better and more observant Jews? Or would it have accelerated our assimilation? I don’t know but it sure is interesting to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)