A chilling pasuq, definitely, in tomorrow's leyning:
The most gentle woman among you, aye, the most dainty, who has not even tried to put the palm of her foot onto the ground, because of her gentleness and daintiness-- she shall not be generous to her bosom husband, or her sun, or her daughter, or her placenta that comes forth from between her legs, and the babies that she bears, for possessing nothing, she shall eat them in secret-- in the siege and the straits that your enemy causes you in your gates.
What's so chilling about this verse?
It describes what it is like to have nothing. Literally, nothing.
All of us who can read this at least have access to a computer. Some readers of this post may be starving to death-- I hope not, but it could be quite likely-- but at least they have something.
There are people out there who have nothing. Not even self-respect. Their oppressors, or possibly just the situations of life, have taken away everything from them, perhaps since the moment of their birth.
בחוסר כל
How can we help such people, in this period before Yom Tov? I suppose that we can help the Jews by giving them supplies and self-respect for Yom Tov. And what about the non-Jews? Well, for the American non-Jews, I guess we can give them supplies and self-respect for Thanksgiving.
Isn't it good that there exists a non-sectarian festal day in America, when we can reach out to people who "live" (if you can call it "life" בחוסר כל?
As the commenters noted on my post - 'We live in a crazy world', I didn't propose shutting down blogs. While it would be nearly impossible for regulations to be enforced, there's a clear need for bloggers to raise their level of responsibility and standards.
At the anti-Internet convention in Lakewood, R Solomon used the 'car' analogy. Driving a car is dangerous. Every day, every hour (maybe even every minute?), people get bruised, hurt, injured, suffer financial loss, hit with lawsuits and tragedly, even death via the mighty automobile. Do we suggest banning cars? Of course not.
But it isn't a free for all either. First, you need a permit, written test, driving test, license, insurance, and vehicle inspection. There's books full of regulations on speeding, signaling, DUI etc etc To top that off, there's cops all over enforcing the laws, with risks of fines, license suspension and even imprisonment!!!
With that said, I'd like to address another 'blog concern', which Little Foxling - our resident in house Kofer (those are his own words) alluded to in the comments. There's much to debate about the current Yeshiva curriculum, but the fact is that the RW Yeshiva system doesn't teach much about the "proofs for God and Judaism". God and TMS is a given. Its pashut. While we can argue and debate if this is the correct approach or not, that isn't the subject of this post.
The subject is that being that the average Charedi Yeshiva guy never heard of DH, or that the 'Mabul never happened', or all the other biblical criticism out there (at least I never knew about it), his Emuna is simplistic. He isn't disturbed and mind boggled by the mounds of so-called 'evidence' and rational arguments which supposedly prove that our holy Torah isn't divine.
So what happens when such people start reading blogs? Like when they read a guest post on the well known orthodox blog hosted by our dear Dovbearthat: "God did not dictate the Torah. The Torah was not God's effort to communicate His ideas to us mortals. The Torah was written by ancient men, and the Torah documents their writing efforts."
Hey! That's Kefira! Even DB agreed that such Kefira doesn't belong on his blog! But the Satan doesn't let him rest. The evil Satan stirs up his curiosity, he starts following link after link, and next thing he knows, he's confused, flooded with questions and doesn't know where to turn.
Understandably, the college-going-Jews doesn't suffer so much from this, since they've been exposed to much of this already, and they've somehow managed to workout a mindset which works for them.
But to the Yeshiva guy who is naive to these issues, reading blogs is akin to a 13 year old kid driving an uninsured, unregistered car. While he might luck out and arrive at his destination unharmed, what he's doing is unquestionably dangerous. The risk that his Neshoma might get bruised, hurt, injured, and sometimes, even spiritual death Rachmana Litzlon.
Blogs aren't a toy. It requires much caution and responsibility. From the blog owner's end, and from the readers end.
On a recent guest post, Akiva lamented about the current state of affairs on the comment threads. He Wrote: "This no longer seems to be a place to discuss, challenge, and argue, with respect for Yiddishkeit. Now it seems to be a place to make fun of, degrade, and denigrate orthodox Judaism."
Being that I am notoriously and infamously known for causing a certain chemical reaction which triggers the commenters to heap on me the most exquisite forms of insults, epithets and name calling (clinically known as letsgangup~on~ed syndrome), I was gearing up my arsenal to face a hoard of frummie-blood-seeking Srugies, out to bash, degrade and denigrate me in every unimaginable way.
But lo and behold, other than some snickering by our dear beloved 'cousin' and some classic Dovbear/Yusbickery, the comment thread progressed in a very civil way with fierce but tame discussion and debate.
So to Akiva I say, don't give up - there's hope!
P.S. After I finished writing this post, I took another look at the comment thread of my previous post, and had the shock of my life:
The Jewish daughter is a princess, or so we're told in the handbook and orientation speeches of every Beis Yaakov. Reading a review of a book about the life of a real princess it suddenly occurred to me that this comparison is perfectly accurate. Here is Christine Stansell describing Diana Spencer's childhood:
Despite having grown up in the 1960s... Diana's horizons were almost as low as [her mother's] had been when she was a girl. She did not travel or read books (except for the billowy romances of Barbara Cartland, in which the shy heroine always gets the manly prince). At home she never met artists or intellectuals or politicians, or heard the world's or the nation's affairs discussed with any seriousness. Quite incredibly, in the 1970s she received a slightly updated version of the same ladies' finishing school education that women reformers had been denouncing since... the eighteenth century as hopelessly feminine, class-bound, and provincial. Such a life did not prepare a girl for university--that was for their brothers.. even though middle-class girls had been going to university, including Oxford and Cambridge, for nearly a century.
Feminine, class-bound, and provincial...Sounds a bit Bes Yaakovy, doesn't it? How many of our daughters travel, or read serious books or discuss anything secular with any seriousness? (The same is true of our sons, I suppose.) Like Diana, frum Jewish girls aren't usually prepared for college, or even for advanced limudei kodesh. What they are prepared to do is find husbands, and here again is Stansel, "On graduating from boarding school, teenagers with titles went to London to take tiny jobs while they waited for husbands to come along."
What's true of British "teenagers with titles," alas, is also true of Brooklyn, Lakewood and Kiryas Joel teenagers named Shprintza or RochelLeah. They, too, are expected to quietly take simple jobs -as secretaries, as clerks, as baby sitters - and to wait patiently until a prince in a black hat, and white shirt arrives with a ring. Even the courtship is similar. Diana and Charles met only 14 times before their wedding, and every step was micro-managed by the queen and her mother.
Our gracious host, Dovbear sent me the following email:
In the name of being more "authentic" has Judaism become less "authentic?"
To which I replied:
Not sure what you mean by more authentic. Has there ever been an authentic Judaism? It's always gone through developmental stages. Most people irk when hearing about the mystical side of Judaism or that it comes from Sinai(and I will admit I am one of them), but when you think about logically, this is just Judaism flowing and developing organically. It goes the same with some odd ball customs and beliefs that may pop up. Should ALL folklorish beliefs enter the corpus of Judaism. Probably not. But when you start putting down the gavel on customs such as dipping your finger in wine and putting on your forehead and back of the neck, you are in effect crushing Judaism's ability to flow out and find different expressions.
The person that is really looking for an "authentic" Judaism needs to ask himself, which Judaism is he talking about? Does he want the one before rabbinic Judaism came along? Does he want one more expressed by the rishonim? If anything, to some extent, the ideas of the rishonim have taken a back seat to another Judaism. So perhaps this means their Judaism was never the authentic one :)
We all have vision of what we would like Judaism to look like. If anything, instead of constantly lambasting others, you should be an example of what you feel is more a correct path. And if you see someone dipping their fingers in wine and putting on their magic neck bone that will not decompose, just do what I do...tell them they are a bunch of idiots ;)
I was kidding about the "idiot" remark. But, there does seem to be conflict here. Judaism by definition evolves and changes, yet when it does, people, especially those on the left complain about it. They have no problems when lets say holidays, like Purim, take a custom of the goyim like costumes, but are upset with stuff like Kabbalah. The truth is, both are now part of the corpus of Judaism. I have to admit, that I am like this too. I think alot of shtus has been swept up into Judaism. But if I want those on the right of me to respect my path, shouldn't I also respect theirs? Again, you run into conflict. IMO daas torah has gone extreme and is at the boiling point. Surely one can make the argument that this is how Judaism, or at least part of it has evolved and expresses itself. So what then. Do I respect it? Tolerate it? Is it still "authentic" Judaism?
In the U.S. there is a perennial debate over the proper role of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, vis-a-vis the other branches of government. Some people have accused the Supreme Court of overstepping its powers, to the point of making law instead of interpreting it. Others believe that the Court is operating within its constitutional boundaries. But here in Israel, such debates have been left far behind. The Israeli Supreme Court has arrogated for itself vast powers unheard of in the U.S. or any other democratic country.
In the U.S., federal judges are appointed by the President, and must be approved by the Senate. But in Israel, judges are appointed by a committee dominated by sitting and retired judges. Neither the government nor the Knesset has any say in the matter. In other words, in Israel, judgeship is a self-perpetuating, exclusive, elite club.
Under Israeli law, the Minister of Justice is mandated with the responsibility for appointing presidents and deputy presidents of the Supreme Court, the District Courts, and the Magistrates' Courts. The law also mandates the Knesset with the responsibility for deciding upon the rules governing the tenure of judges. [See Basic Law: The Judiciary (1984) IV. 23(3-4).] Such laws are standard in Western democracies, and are a fundamental part of the separation of powers. In these examples, checks and balances were placed upon the powers of the Judicial branch, by letting the Executive branch decide upon judicial appointments, and letting the Legislative branch determine judicial tenure.
Over the last few decades, however, the Israeli Government and Knesset have abdicated their responsibilities vis-a-vis the courts: The Knesset has failed to pass any laws regulating judicial tenure, choosing instead to allow the courts to make those rules for themselves. (Not surprisingly, the judges decided that their own tenure would be unlimited.) And decisions on the appointments of court presidents and deputy presidents have not been made by the Minister of Justice, but instead by the President of the Supreme Court: As a matter of routine, the President of the Court would simply deliver a list of names to the Justice Minister. Having been reduced to the role of a rubber stamp, the Minster would then obediently make the appointments as he was instructed.
The current Justice Minister, Daniel Friedmann, has decided to take his obligation under the law a bit more seriously. While still open to recommendations from the Supreme Court, he is also interested in getting the opinions of others. To this end, he has proposed the creation of search committees to make recommendations on judicial appointments. The final decisions, of course, would remain with the Justice Minister -- as the law stipulates. He has also introduced legislation that would impose term limits upon judges.
The current judicial establishment in Israel, however, has grown quite comfortable with the overwhelming powers that they have accumulated, thanks to so many years of abdication of responsibility on the part of the Executive branch. So comfortable, in fact, that they have exploded in righteous fury over Friedmann's modest attempts to respect the law and restore some balance. Evelyn Gordon wrote an excellent article yesterday about these judges' hypocrisy.
In a public letter lambasting Friedmann for his attempts at judicial reform, Former Supreme Court Judge Mishael Heshin declared the Supreme Court to be his own personal "home", and that if anyone dared to raise his hand against that home -- a clear reference to Friedmann -- Heshin would "chop off that hand". And last week, former Supreme Court judge Yitzhak Zamir had this to say:
"[Judicial] independence requires the minister to waive his powers to appoint [court] presidents and deputy presidents. Minister Friedmann must withdraw his proposal to appoint search committees [for these appointments]."
Note that Zamir is not denying that these appointments are the job of the Justice Minister. In spite of this, he demands that the Minister "waive his powers" under the law, turning them over instead to his overlords on the courts, in the name of "judicial independence"! Let the rule of law be damned. You might expect such a bizarre statement to spark outrage, but here in Israel, where the people are accustomed to this level of judicial tyranny, nobody even batted an eyelash. In fact, most Israeli political figures, as well as the media, have aligned themselves fimly on the side of the all-powerful judges, and against the rookie Justice Minster.
Americans, who are used to associating the political right with opposition to judicial activism, might be surprised to learn that Friedmann's critics include such figures as Benjamin Netanyahu, chairman of the Likud. Netanyahu, in fact, has promised that if he becomes Prime Minister, he will introduce legislation to "undo the damage" done by Friedmann to the power of the Supreme Court.
Friedmann's attempts at judicial reform are a valiant attempt to restore basic democratic values to the Israeli political system. It's unfortunate that his chances of succeeding are close to zero.
While I was out, I see another Republican Congressman got busted for sex crimes. This time, the perp is Larry Craig [R. Idaho] and according to the police, he propositioned a police officer in an airport bathroom. Craig has pleaded guilty.
Forgive me fellow Democrats, but I'm not going to kill Craig . Sure, the gay, or perhaps bi-curious Republican senator is a hypocrite for identifying with a party that is happy to ostracize and humiliate homosexuals. We know that. We've seen that before. We're used to fake piety and sanctimony from the GOP. All that is par for the course, and I hope easily blinded Orthodox Jews will, one day, see the GOP for the frauds they are. Blah, blah, blah, etc.
Meanwhile, I want to know this: Why is it a crime to proposition someone?
According to the police, all Craig did was stick his fingers under the stall divider, and he did it only after the cop via code, led him on. That's illegal? Isn't what Craig did the bathroom sex equivalent of asking a pretty girl for her phone number?
I hate to stick up for Craig, but it seems to me the poor guy has been railroaded.
Some of the JBlogosphere's biggest cynics, skeptics and bashers comment here at DovBear's blog. You know who they are. We all do.
Granted, they keep things entertaining -- but the JBlogosphere is far from being only them; not everyone is infected by their pessimism. While their ranting occasionally drowns out the good, I would like to share some of the positive. [Ed note: The views expressed here do not reflect the opinions of the management. We heart the comments. ]
That's not to say that I'm not having a bit of a crisis. But, so far, no major crisis of faith...
I don't understand why this is happening. But, as I always say, things could be worse. So I am grateful that the cancer was discovered when it was and that I live in a time when there are really good drugs that can keep me alive for a long time.
Still, I wanted to do something more.
I wanted to respond to my situation in a religious way. I already asked everyone I know to pray for me. And I am on a number of Tehillim lists (groups who say recite all of Psalms in someone's merit).
But what should I do? What could I take on without it being too much for me at this time?
I didn't want to take on something that I couldn't keep up. So, I decided that I would focus on something that I do already, and try to do it "better". So, I am trying to say brachot (blessings) out loud and with more kavanah (focused intention).
Many years ago, when I was in college, I accompanied a friend to her family's home for Shabbat. After I said a bracha (blessing) quietly, her father asked why I had said the bracha quietly and denied him the ability to answer "amen", which would give him the merit of having participated in the bracha. I didn't have an answer then, and that question has stayed with me for years.
I still feel a little silly, saying the brachot out loud. But I am working on it.
When you want to take a break from the cynics and appreciate a fresh breathe of optimism and emuna, visit her blog after your daily (hourly?) read at Dovbear.
Wishing RivkA bat Tirzel a Refuah Shelaima. [Ed note: Omein, vchen yehi rotzon]
Jameel @ TheMuqata
(And of course, thanks again to DB for the posting rights -- that's another reason for optimism.)
We live in a crazy world where every Tom, Dick and Harry can publicize and rant all his extra gas and steam for the world to see. While there might be benefits to blogging, there are dangers too.
Blogs have the power to spread information at lightening speeds all over the world. I've been around long enough to see false rumours and gossip being told as fact with damaging results.
Such as here where he gets an email from a "source with impeccable credentials" that at the recent wedding of Rabbi Kotler's daughter, there was a 10 piece band and 5,000 guests. In the comments, he claims - "All I did was point out a fact". His title - "Leading by example" was clearly showing his directive. He was out to bash the RY of Lakewood for such an extravagant wedding. And the commenters read it and got riled up, and started the anti-RW/anti-Charedi/anti-Gedolimbashfest.
But I was there. There was no 10 piece band. It was a 5 piece band. Anyone familiar with bands knows that a 5 piece band is pretty basic. Its only once you go past 5-6 pieces where it becomes excessive. Now, while even a 5 piece band is still more excessive than a one man band, can it be that the Neginah Orchestra representative in Lakewood who at least in my Kollel days used to learn in BMG the whole first Seder (and quite possibly still does) arranged a special discounted rate for the RY?
I spoke to a friend who works for the caterer. He told me that 1130 portions were ordered, not 5,000 or anything close to that. Quite possible that 4,000 people showed up at the SimchasChossonV'kalla to wish the Rosh Yeshiva MazelTov, an appropriate gesture of HakorasHatov.
So here is an example of a blog posting with pure fabrications. Now while I have to credit him for finally (!) retracting and apologizing (with much prodding and protests from my end), has anyone walked away without seeing the apology? Or even with seeing it, nevertheless walked away with a bad taste?
That's just one example of negative misinformation being disseminated on blogs. There's plenty more which go uncontested. Too much false gossip and slander. Blogs are a medium with no regulations. Anyone can say anything they want. And that's dangerous.
Last week, Little Foxling reported that one of our gedolim, HaRav HaGaon Yitzchok Hutner, attended performances of the Berlin opera. Unfortunately, in his rush to file the story, LF neglected to provide the proper context. Though it is true that HaRav HaGaon Hutner did frequent the opera, often in the company of "Rabbi" Joe Solivetchik, the Rosh Yeshiva's trips to the the Staatsoper Unter den Linden were for research purposes only. Additionally, he is known to have attended only the all male, seperate seating, Chol Hamoed extravaganza performances featuring Shwecky and All*Kosher hotdogs. Not, chas v'sholom, the ones that were open to the general public.
I had an insight in shi'ur today, which Rav Wieder liked.
We're lerning Brochos.
It has often been pointed out that the ברכות הנהנין are written in Biblical Hebrew, whereas the prescriptive text in the Mishna is written in Rabbinic Hebrew.
e.g. על פירות האילון מברך "בורא פֿרי העץ
If the berokho were in Rabbinic Hebrew, it would have to be בורא פירות האילן.
So, the question is: Why is this?
And I pointed out: It's definitely not because ALL liturgy is in Biblical Hebrew: look at the expression לתקן עולם במלכות שדי, in 'Alenu, which is clearly non-Biblical phraseology.
So, my hiddush was:
The ברכות הנהנין are intentionally written in language that reflects Genesis chapter 1.
בורא פֿרי העץ reflects ועץ עושה פרי. Rebbi Yehuda's berakha בורא מיני דֿשאים reflects תדשא הארץ דשא.
Rav Wieder liked this.
He added: When the religiously conscious individual sees a simple apple, he or she sees עץ עושה פרי. He or she sees the beauty of מעשה בראשית in all of creation. Isn't that beautiful?
Once there was a little boy who heard from his mother that his grandmother was sick. So he called his grandmother, and she was really happy, and she told him to call her every Friday. And then he told his friend, and she was inspired to call her grandmothers. And then she told her friend, who was inspired to call her grandmother. And eventually each friend told a friend, and these people told their friends, who told their friends, until everybody in the town had called their grandmothers, and all the grandmothers were happy. And the moral of the story is: mitzva gorereth mitzva.
(Now, in fact, the people involved in this story in real life were actually not little children, but adults. But that hardly changes the message.)
So:
Call your grandparents! It is very easy, and it will make them very happy! And spread this message to all your friends!
Non-Jews shave every day. When you go to the mall on a Sunday, you won't ever see a Christian with a day or two of stubble on his chin. At the amusement park or the lake its always only the Jew sporting the stubble. Why? Are we lazier? Do we find shaving more difficult?
I brought this up last week with one of the local know-it-alls who provided this explnataion:
"Jewish men feel guilty about taking a vacation. The time away from Torah gnaws at them. They know they don't belong at the beach or the park with half-dressed women so they subconciously make up for it by growing their beards."
Uh... can we say crazy? Besides the idea that Jews should be wearing beards is ahistorical jibberish. Many Italian rabbis didn't wear beards, including the sainted Ramchal. And if paintings are to be believed some Spanish and Portugese rabbis before the expulsion didn't wear a beard either.
This wasn't controversial.
[Thanks to someone for the three sentences he provided which appear above.]
I will be honest in that I do not believe that using a sex change is a solution to the transgender issue. A forthcomming and honest appraisal of current techology for plastic surgery will tell you that we just are not capable of making a credible and workable sex change at this point in time. Many things we can change, we can change how they look, we can make them look something like the opposite sex, but we cannot really make it work. A man who is taller than most women, for him we can do nothing to reduce is hight, nor his jaw structure, or any other part of his skeletal structure significantly. True we can break his jaw and reset it, but This would not work very well. We can do other cosmetic surgeries, but we cannot truly make them work. We still do not have the technology to cause his mamery glands to develop, even though we can remove hers. We still cannot cause him to have the correct hormones without giving them to him with drugs. Above all we cannot make a man go unto the way of women, nor women like men, even though we can make them look something like them; Although with stem cell technology this could very well soon change.
But that is not quite the point of this post. There is a jewish tradition within the kabala that each person has a mission to accomplish, that they are uniquely suited for. Given the (at times dourly) noted seperation of the sexes both in school and in life, beginning from a young age, A young boy going through trouble may never see anyone who has the capacity to nurture him and care for him because of the troubles he sees at home. There are other examples of these problems as well, and I will leave you to puzzle it out, but thesedays I think that perhaps the birth of transgender people is inorder to bring a little bit of the feminine in the the masculine world, and to bring a little bit of the masculine in to the feminine world; something that would seem to me to be a necessity. It is therefore that I think that specificaly choosing to make a sex change is almost like suicide, turning your back on the mission that you have been entrusted (I am thinking specificaly about some midrashim in berashis rabba, around perek (ed. note: I think that more properly its probably around perek 18 or 19 as it arises in the section dealing with the snake), speaking about a snake that went somewhere because he was on a mission, as well as other examples). this is not to say that we should judge those who do, but I think that this is the case. This I think is the purpose behind it.
(note, transgender is what leads someone to have a sex change and thereby become a transexual. It is not someone who has already had one.)
I think that I should, perhaps, rephrase this post. The Intent is that I neither think that transexuals are people who choose their lot in life, nor do I think that it is ok for them to simply say that they cannot live their lives as the sex they were born. I think that the placement of transgender people in this world by hashem is inorder to help intermix the genders to usefull purpose, allowing the kochos of one in to a section of the world that they might not otherwise penetrate. As such, I think that, while they are unjudgable, the solution for the transgender individual is not a sex change. The solution is to rise to the chalange that g-d has placed before them; and to use their unique abilities to effect a positive change in the world, on a micro scale, beginning with the individual. One does not effect this change by waging campaigns and wars against the established order, but by using your gifts to change peoples lives for the better; and they are to make them happier, one by one, with each person you meet.
Several weeks ago, Yeshiva World blog posted a cautionary notice, warning its readers to make sure that the “organ donor” boxes on their New York State driver's license is not accidentally checked.
What a typically frum, don't-bother-me-with-the-facts, knee-jerk reaction!
We could start a debate about the immorality of a religion that allows one to receive organ donations, but which does not allow its adherents to reciprocate. We could discuss how this selfishness is perceived by the medical establishment, or by the world at large. We could ponder whether it's ethical for Jews to prevent saving a life (or restoring the eyesight for someone who would otherwise remain blind) for the sake of the elusive concept of avoiding bizayon hameis. We could argue about the halakhic issues involving brain death. We could consider whether a frum Jew is religiously required to keep his/her dead carcass intact so that it will be whole when and ifTechiyas Hameisim occurs. We could discuss why donating/accepting a kidney from a living person is a mitzvah, but donating one from a dead one is perceived by some to be halakhically problematic. In fact, feel free to debate all of these issues, if you so desire.
But that isn't the purpose of this post. The sole purpose of this post is to make it as widely known as possible that having an organ donor card is not contrary to halakhah.
Here's how to get yourself a halakhic donor card (there is a minimum $18 donation involved). Sometime today, I'll do my mitzvah of the day by signing up. I encourage you do the same.
David Volach who won the 2007 Founders Award for Best Narrative Feature at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York with his movie My Father My Lord," - "Hufshat Kayitz" (Summer Vacation), talks about his haredi past and why he became secular in the following interview.
I want to share this interview with you for us to understand why many among us are abandoning Orthodoxy nowadays. Do agree with some of the points he makes? Do you disagree? Why? What can be done to prevent the assimilation of fellow Orthodox Jews?
One evening two decades ago, David Volach was walking in the center of Jerusalem. Through the high glass windows of the Kings Hotel he noticed two elderly men sitting in the lobby. Volach, who was then studying at the Ponevezh Yeshiva, straightened his black suit and entered. "Your appearance piqued my curiosity," he said, explaining why a religiously observant Jew was spending time with two heretics. "Are you even allowed to come in here?" one of the two, whose face was deeply wrinkled, asked, and invited him to sit down. He then introduced himself. "I am David Avidan. I am the best poet in the country." A lengthy conversation ensued, at the end of which Avidan invited Volach to visit him at his home in Tel Aviv. "I thought he was totally sick," Volach recalls. "He talked as though he were a messiah. But he expressed himself clearly. We exchanged phone numbers and he begged me to study with him. In the conversation we talked about [Prof. Yeshayahu] Leibowitz, whom I had met as a boy in Jerusalem. He told me that he did not hold him in high regard either, and suddenly we became friends and everything fit."
Despite the powerful experience, it would take Volach a few more years to cross the lines. Outwardly he continued to conduct the life of a yeshiva student from a respected family of Lithuanian Jews - he had 20 brothers and sisters - living in Jerusalem's Mekor Baruch neighborhood. Inwardly, he burned with curiosity about the secular world of the spirit.
Twenty years after that meeting, now aged 37 and deeply ensconced on the secular side, Volach suggests a reciprocal visit. This time he invites secular people to visit the home of a religiously observant Jew. The intimate meeting takes place in his debut film, "My Father My Lord," - "Hufshat Kayitz" (Summer Vacation) in Hebrew - which tells the story of relationships in the family of a Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbi, played by Assi Dayan. The film won the 2007 Founders Award for Best Narrative Feature at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, but it is different from other successful Israeli films, and not only because all the characters in it are Haredim. Volach, whose entire cinema experience consisted of one year of film studies at the Open University, makes abundant use of long shots and creates an atmosphere of gloom, marked by long silences. His film evokes the cinema of Krzysztof Kieslwoski and Ingmar Bergman.
Why I was attracted to secularism from childhood "At the age of three you start to learn aleph-bais. You are taken with a tallis [prayer shawl] covering your eyes, so you will not see forbidden sights. Not even modest women. To glory in holiness. For years I have the memory of the taxi from the house to the kindergarten, even though my eyes were covered. In retrospect I said: On that day I lost my faith. I always had a tendency to see life beyond the way it is defined. A friend of mine met me in Geula [an ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood] and saw me without the Haredi apparel. He said, 'David, I'm going nuts. One day when we were 12 you were with us and we saw an advertisement of an ass on the bus. You explained to us that some asses are like pears and some are like apples.' "As a boy I would go to talk to Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He behaved like a good granddad. I asked him how he lived his religion - on the one hand, Orthodox faithfulness, and on the other hostility to the tradition. His answers did not satisfy me, and with good reason: he hated psychoanalysis, but the only thing that could have helped him was serious therapy. In my view he was the copywriter of the philosophers. He could sell you cheese without ever having tasted it. "After Ponevezh I went to the yeshiva of Rabbi Zilberman, where Uri Zohar [a comic and filmmaker who became religious] studied, in the Old City of Jerusalem. Zilberman did not want to send his children to institutions, so he opened a chaider [in modern Hebrew, heder, a religious elementary school] in which he taught. Then they grew up and so the yeshiva was built. They were not involved in Haredi politics, but were religious freaks. They wore tefillin [phylacteries] all the time. From my point of view, this was religious progress. Religion invites you to totality, and for me to study in his yeshiva was an invitation to totality in conformist conditions. "I had to find my own thing. I went to consult with Rabbi Schach [who was head of Ponevezh Yeshiva and leader of Lithuanian - non-Hasidic Haredi - Jewry]. I wanted his approval. He was an authority. To talk with Rabbi Schach is grandeur, a personal leap upward. I had also bothered him earlier with questions. But I did not hold him in regard; in my view he was not developed in the religious sphere. He engaged in Talmudic pilpul [hairsplitting] and was not one who thought and reflected. "Under Zilberman I achieved insane heights of worshiping God. I would shower at 4 A.M. with freezing cold water in the winter in order to eradicate desire. To devote myself. I also entered a boiling mikveh [ritual bath]. I imagined that it was Hell. Religious challenges in order to identify the larger-than-life. "I left after half a year. The totality gives you involvement, and involvement gives you knowledge. The two of them give you independence and freedom."
Why I recoiled from Haredi education "What does it mean to be elitist? It means there are not many cultural authorities above you. The education at home was very elitist. My father, Yitzhak, was a talmid hakham [Torah scholar]. The status was made clear to me. Something triumphant. If you are imbued with the power of an elitist self-image, it will stay in you and will be expressed even if you move to a different side, society or culture. The way Robin Hood came from a rich family. "There is no politically correct in Haredi society. Everything is on the table. Like social classes in 18th- century England. It is accepted and legitimate to tell a girl, 'I cannot take you, because you are from a poor home.' You see it as an overt obligation to uphold your status. You are afraid of losing something of life. The commitment to a fantasy of supremacy frightens me. It shows me the success of the racist Haredi education: to persuade you not to be other. That is so Jewish, so Haredi. "When I wanted to explain the film's main character to Assi Dayan, I told him, 'Think of your family and do a conversion. Understand the elitism, the status. There is Moshe Dayan and his son is named Assi Dayan.' I did not want the righteousness of the character to steal the show. Righteousness comes from elitism."
Why I smoked on Shabbat "Usually people say that those who lost their faith either have a conscience or are afraid. Not me. The first time I smoked on Shabbat I did it with love. I said a blessing: 'Blessed art thou, Lord, who sanctified us with thy commandments and commanded us to smoke on Shabbat.' "After I returned from Rabbi Zilberman's yeshiva, I started to develop a strong contempt for the Haredi way, contempt for the structure - your father figure is undermined. And then you slowly allow yourself to turn it into actions. You hook up with people who resemble you in conversations, in the life of idleness, in solidarity with the departure from the commitment. To walk on the street without a hat and a suit is a revolution. Off the wall. "I had a black leather kippa. I lived in Jerusalem in a rented apartment. One day a close friend said to me, 'You are neither here nor there, and you are 25. Maybe you should get married?' I set a deadline of four months: either I would move to Tel Aviv, take off the kippa completely and study film, or I would get married in a Haredi environment and maintain dress codes. "During those four months I constantly persuaded myself and mustered mental strength. On Friday evening I would take the car, park a long way off, have the Shabbat meal at my parents' place and then drive back to the apartment. But on one Shabbat, Leah, my mother, caught me smoking. I said, 'Ho, I so much want for you not to see this.' She said, 'That is the problem? To see?' For me it was the way to live, for them the way to grief. It broke them. A cigarette on Shabbat means you are in a bad way, that you are told that your son is sick with an advanced state of cancer and there is nothing to be done. The taboo is so strong that if you violate it you can do anything. The cigarette was the slope. As the disaster unfolded I understood that it was worthy. "In the family's eyes, leaving religion is betrayal, failure. That drove me crazy. It's no fun to make your parents feel distress. For them everything was a disaster. There was no prolonged process that had to be understood, only disaster after disaster. Betrayal of the essence, the community. There is tension between the Haredi and secular societies, and suddenly you switch sides. To be Haredi is not an independent experience; it is to stand up against the secular society. "Automatically my parents stopped talking to me. And that went on for many years. I felt I had paid a very high price, that I had no choice but to be perfect. A child loves his parents. I have 20 brothers and sisters, and my mother is reserved, sweet. You won't believe it, but she never shouted at us. 'That's not done,' she says, and that's all. A very special mother. I went through a very hard time. I felt like damaged goods, and my conscience said, 'What are you doing to your parents?' "I was completely alone in terms of family, but I had friends, a girl who went on this journey with me. We had love, dependency, ties. But it's always alone. Things like this you do alone. It is a fundamental change. I did not go to organizations like HILLEL ("The Right to Choose") and I did not connect with the idea of a foster family. But there is no quid pro quo for freedom. It's an ongoing climax. It's absolutely intoxicating. "Haredim ask me, 'Why be secular? If you want sex, go to prostitutes. If you want publicity, go to the Haredi media.' I replied, 'It has to do with the culture I want to live.'"
Why I drive a car every Yom Kippur "I make a point of driving in Tel Aviv on Yom Kippur. It's very hard for me. I come back with tears and an aching heart. A thorn in the ass. It is an extremely difficult experience. I do not want to rebel against anyone. I am literally sick for a day after that. I feel like a criminal. "It is not a right, it is an obligation. A civic obligation. I can respect Yom Kippur more than anyone else. But in Israel it is very grave that on Yom Kippur everyone becomes Haredi. That all-of-us scares me very much. It exists on a religious foundation. To preserve all the ugly things in the religion: we are the Chosen People. That is an opening to suppression. Someone who drives on Yom Kippur should be exempt from all the civic obligations. He is like someone who has saved his country from an atomic bomb. With that act I suddenly feel that I am a citizen."
Why I am still a bit Haredi "Sometimes I have a great hankering to eat kishke, gefilte fish, cholent. The heart hungers for it, not only the gut. It's a custom, with childhood memories, granddad, grandma, Shabbat, moments. Flavor and food, the mouth never moves away from suckling on the tit. It's not a longing for something that is not there; it's something that remains there. "My friends say, 'You removed the kippa but you stayed Haredi. Look at how you talk, look at your hand motions.' From their point of view, that is a type of failure. He chose not to be religious, but nothing helped: he remained religious. When I am stoned I speak the way I would sound today if I had stayed Haredi. "Do you know what a mental effort is needed to repress it, so people won't see it in you, so no sign will be left that will give you away, so people will not discern your hunger to integrate? A person doesn't want to be hungrier than the others at a meal."
It's kind of ironic how the Chareidi RWNJs (Right Wing Nut Jobs) keep heaping on the chumras, be they about Tznius, making it seem more Taliban-like than Jewish, or about Pesach, always adding to the list of what's kitniyos (Pot?! Come on!!!), or about concerts, or any other slew of things that have been reported in the news and on other blogs. All this has been, in essence, an effort to close themselves off from the rest of the world, claiming they want nothing to do with the outside world and that they don't want the outside world to affect them.
Good. If that were the case. Here's the irony, though: By becoming more and more right wing, or, in their eyes at least, "frummer" than the rest of the Orthodox world, they are more and more reflecting the outside, non-Jewish world, especially fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. They are not closing themselves off from the outside world. They are making themselves more like some elements in the outside world.
Look at the Arab Fundamentalists - They scream and shout about their religion and how it's the only "emes." Sound familiar? They make their women dress literally from head to toe in shapeless clothes. Sound familiar? Ok, thankfully, the Jewish RWNJ aren't doing so yet, at least when it comes to covering up women's faces with burkhas. However, Rabbi Adlerstein, over at Cross-Currents, has inferred more than once that he won't mention who's who in the RWNJ world without upping his life insurance for fear of his life, the same way many "normal" "middle of the road" Arabs simply don't object to the fundamentalism because they like staying alive. On the other hand, Rabbi Natan Slifkin was put into Cherem simply because he mentioned theories of the age of the universe that, while mentioned by great Torah scholars of the past, are not as universally accepted or popular as say, the theory of Hakadosh Baruch Hu Bara Olam Yashan (God created an old [looking] world). Interesting to note about Rabbi Slifkin: Rav Elyashiv was apparently quite surprised Rabbi Slifkin's books are in Cherem, having pronounced them to be good books for Ba'alei Teshuva with questions about Judaism to read...
Look at the Christians - They espouse family values. That's all you hear from them, especially their politicians. But where do you hear about troubled families, messy divorces, and infidelity the most? The Chrisitian Right, especially their politicians.
Then there's Chareidi politics. Pretty much the same as that of the Christian Right. It's practically halacha to vote for the Republicans because they are so good for "family values" and for religion. Never mind the history of Christian hatred toward Jews. Never mind the Halacha that Eisav Soneh L'Yaakov - Eisav hates Yaakov. Never mind they believe the only way their "Savior" will come back will be if the Holy Land is not in the hands of infidels, and Jews don't happen to be infidels (we just need "Saving"). Never mind that that idiot Bush's White House policies and his illegal war in Iraq has caused the Arabs to hate Israel (which they see as the US's proxy in the Middle East) and Jews even more than they already did (not that they needed an excuse, but Bush gave them one anyway - is that how a "friend" of Israel acts?), making him pretty bad for Israel and the Jews, not as great as so many people, especially many in the RZ community, believe.
My wife and I are big fans of a show called Stargate-SG1, which, sadly, ended it's ten year run in June. The Episode titled "Line in the Sand" made a very poignant point about people in authority corrupting stories in religious texts to fit their own agendas. In this particular episode, one character, Tomin, had been reading from the "Book of Origin," a ficitional Bible of some very powerful beings trying to force their religion on the rest of the galaxy. In the story, the main character, Markon, did not want to accept the religion and left his village. However, he had second thoughts, accepted the Ori, and was accepted back.
The Prior, the equivalent of a priest or a rabbi, of the Ori (hence - Origin), skewed this story and instead decided that the story meant the village that took him back in was destroyed, thus using the story to achieve his own goal of destroying a village that would not accept the Ori in the Stargat episode:
"The village will be destroyed. They have been touched by evil. There is no salvation for them. Markon walked away from the Ori to satisfy his hunger. But no matter how much he ate, he did not feel full. Realizing his mistake, he ran back to the Ori. But they denied his pleas and struck down the village that welcomed him back, and the hands of the Ori enveloped all those who welcomed him back. The village was destroyed. All those who stand by and accept transgressions must be punished."
Said Tomin to the Prior, "Forgive me Prior, that is not the implication of the text. The Ori granted forgiveness when Markon realized his mistake and blessed the village with their light for showing him the way back to the Path."
The Prior roared back at him, "You DARE to question my judgement?!" "No," said Tomin. "It's just not how I was taught."
"There are many words, but only one TRUTH," retorted the Prior.
And this is what's been going on in the Chareidi RWNJ world. No longer is the precept of Shiv'im Panim LaTorah accepted. Texts are skewed or misrepresented when convenient. There can be only one way, their way, and how dare someone question them or say something not in line with what they and their gedolim decree? And if you go against them, it's Cherem! Which is pretty much the same as destroying the village. Let's desroy the person.
Oh, and by the way. Fedoras and suits are definitely the way goyim dress (well, dressed, in the case of hats). If one really wants to dress as Moshe Rabbeinu did, one should wear a Kafiyeh and robes, not a suit, tie, and gangster hat...
Over the past generation, there has been wailing and gnashing of teeth from all Jewish quarters about rising intermarriage rates.
My rough sense (which may not be any other reader's rough sense) is that the wailing/gnashing quotient is higher the more frum you are.
The paradox here, it seems to me, is this: it could be argued that the more frum you are, the more confidence you should have that Moschiah will set things right in the end, and thus the less worried you should be about this little deviation.
Here is a suggested prayer for those about to drink. Please enjoy and I am looking specificaly for corrections and creative and amusing amendations.
רבונו של עולם הנה כי אהיה שותה בלילה הזה׃ יהי רצון מלפניך לשמור אותי וחברים שלי מכל דבר רע: נתן בלבינו סליחה וכפרה בצחוק של חברינו והתענג עינינו בדברי שמחה עד אין קיץ ועד עין תכלית ולא יהי לנו בושת בזקנה שלנו׃ יהי לנו חיים וזכרונות טובות אדונינו נא לא נדע הפתעה הבקר׃ ברוך שעשה יין לישמח לבב אדם׃
Over the past year, I've noticed that Jews (both Orthodox and not) often use "Orthodox" as a synonym for "frum" (that is, ritually observant). So Jews who aren't 100% frum are, by definition, not Orthodox.
At one level, this makes sense. In America in 2007, Jews do sort themselves out into little boxes based on ritual observance: usually, the most observant are Orthodox, the least observant Reform, and so on. And as more observant non-Orthodox and less observant Orthodox die off, the overlap between denominations may be getting smaller over time. (Much as in national politics, there are fewer liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats than there used to be).
But I wonder whether this is a good thing for Judaism and, in particular, for Orthodoxy. On the one hand, Orthodox Jews occasionally (in my experience) define "Orthodox" as a synonym for frum. On the other hand, Orthodox Jews sometimes think of Orthodoxy as the heir to the traditional Judaism of the past 2000 years, a Judaism that, though defined by observance, nevertheless included everybody until the rise of Reform in the 19th century. Is there an inconsistency here?
Or to put it another way, is it better to have Jews sorting themselves out into ideologically distinctive little boxes? Or is it better for our congregations to be "Big Boxes" embracing a broad variety of Jews?
The latter option seems (based on my limited knowledge) to be the norm outside of American Ashkenazi Judaism. When I lived in another city, I went to a Sephardic shul; my sense is that there was a wider range of people there than in a typical Orthodox shul. And similarly, in most of the world, there isn't the kind of ideological differentiation you find in America. In Israel and most of Europe, the non-Orthodox movements are weaker, and the frum and the not-so-frum often go to the same Orthodox shuls.
Is this a better system? Discuss among yourselves.
Anger at Torah Leadership by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
The Internet is filled with anger at Torah leadership. Recently, some prominent Torah scholars have taken to present their opinions on the Internet, and this simply made things hotter. There is a cycle to the situation. Someone does something or says something that offends certain rabbis. The rabbis respond, and this stokes the fires instead of calming things. There are many Torah Jews on the Internet, but it seems at times that the anger is greater than the love and reverence we expect. Why? What is going on?
I have been angry at the Torah community for a generation. A new type of "gadole" took over after the European greats died. A new kind of Torah Judaism is alive in the world. I hate it. I fought it in my seforim, in brochures and letters to the community, even on the radio. I did this not because I rebel against Gedolim, but because I was very close to them, and they were upset but silent, and I will not be silent.
I once opened my mouth full blast in a shull in Jerusalem in front of a close relative of a great Gadole. He was very puzzled and upset, because I was a Talmid of his relative. At first he made faces and mumbled and finally his puzzlement changed to a broad smile. A wise man, he did not tell me directly why he now understood. He hinted from a Torah peshat on Chumash that Shimon and Levi did what Yaacov wanted done, even though it was a horrible thing to do. I don't say that this is what I meant, but my point is that he realized I was saying what great people could not. If they would say it the world would come to an end. If I say it, whoever wants to listen, fine, and if not, no damage is done.
What do I hate? Here is a list:
1.2500 girls aged 25 on a Shadchon's list. Other shadchonim won't take a girl because it is a waste of his time.
2.A bas Talmid Chochom is rejected, by the Rosh Yeshiva's "daas Torah" in favor of a rich baal habos. The Shulchan Aruch quotes the gemora that one must sell everything to marry a bas Talmid Chochom.
3.A girl is taught to marry a great scholar, but the great scholar's rebbe tells him to marry someone rich.
4.Everyone must be a gadole. Whoever works is a failure. The gemora and Shulchan Aruch say just the opposite.
5.Everyone must take after marriage and not earn. Rambam, Rabbeinu Yona and Rashi say that if you take you have no Olam Habo.
6.Parents ready to retire must fork over fortunes to support the "jewel" who learns and doesn't work. "Everyone" must go to kollel, which is against the Shulchan Aruch and destroys many men, their working wives, and children who have no mother. It also destroys the desperate parents who have to pay sometimes by selling their homes.
7.This spiritual sewage produces no gedolim. But it gets worse and worse.
8.Learn, don't work, and take government programs. This again is a violation of the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch.
9.The Talmud says, "A child not taught to earn will be a thief." Do we just say rip off the parents and trust in HaShem? What happens then?
10.The divorce situation is a disaster, and will surely lead to mamzerut. But there is nobody to talk to about it.
11.Kashruth for a baal nefesh will end in a few years do to genetic engineering and the absence of mirsas in global food companies. Nobody cares.
12.Family and marriage are torn to shreds by "daas Torah."
There are many people out there who don't articulate things this way, but they are getting angrier all of the time. The Torah world is a can of gasoline, and I want to throw in the match.
A divorced couple has gone to court to determine whether their son is to be circumcised following his father's conversion to Judaism.
The father, James Boldt, wants his 12-year-old son to undergo the surgical procedure, but the boy's mother opposes it. So far, Oregon courts have sided with the father, who has custody. The case is scheduled to be heard by the Oregon Supreme Court in the fall.
"You're talking about not just religious instruction or whether you're going to send the child to parochial school or public school," said Lawrence Gorin, a Portland attorney. "This is a matter of permanent change of bodily structure. And it's irreversible."
The mother filed for divorce in 1998 after the couple married in the early 1990s. The father started studying Judaism in 1999 and eventually converted. The child initially lived with his mother, but the father later gained custody.
In court papers, the father claims the boy gradually concluded that he also wanted to convert to Judaism and understands that it requires circumcision. He also claims that as the custodial parent he had a constitutional right to raise his son in his religion.
This case raises many issues:
* US law rightly affords parents wide latitude to make decisions for and about their children. But there are exceptions to that rule. For example, a Jehovah’s Witness usually cannot deprive his child of a life-saving blood transfusion.
* Circumcision isn’t a medical emergency, or even medically indicated, and this boy isn’t an infant who won't remember what was done to him. He’s twelve years old, old enough to understand the procedure. Does he want to undergo this procedure? Shouldn’t this be a deciding factor? And if it is, is a 12-year-old mature enough to decide this for himself? We do not have any information on where the boy stands, other than the father's claims.
• If minor girls can have an abortion, why can’t minor boys refuse a circumcision?
• Why does the father’s conversion to Judaism necessitate elective surgery on the son?
* Is cutting living tissue off a body part of a 12-year-old a breach of human rights?
Pretend you're sitting on the Oregon Supreme Court. How would you decide?
It's always been a source of puzzlement to why Jews, doesn't matter what type (O, C, R, Nothing), insist on living in big, giant cities, like New York and Los Angeles. I mean, honestly, what's the attraction?
I'm a big city person. I've lived in both New York and Los Angeles. In fact, I mostly grew up in Los Angeles (minus about six years in Israel). The problem with these places, aside from the obvious jokes one can make about both LA and NY, is they are TOO DAMN BIG!! But, I hate the big city. New York was awful. People there acted horribly, were quite rude, and it was way too overcrowded. In LA, people were a bit nicer, but again, there were just too many!
When a community becomes so huge as to number in the upper hundreds of thousands people, or even in the millions, that community ceases to be a community. Oh, sure, there are smaller shuls which one may join, larger ones in which one may be active. And within the confines of those shuls, certainly, there is some sense of community.
But what about community in a larger sense? A community to which everyone who is Jewish belongs? That dies when a community becomes a population. And that's the difference between a community and a population. A community, like the one in which I currently live, is close-knit, friendly, and gives you a sense of belonging. Shuls do things in conjunction with other shuls. They support each other in many endeavors.
On the other hand, a population is just that, a population. A population does not give one the sense of a community. You are invisible most of the time, unless you are within the framework of your shul or social circle.
I've never understood why Jews tend to congregate in large metropolitan areas. Certainly, with New York, which was the immigrant drop-off point, it made sense that a Jewish community would form there. But why stay? Even more relevant, why MOVE there?! Again, I understand NY has much to offer in the way of conveniences, restaurants, etc. But as someone who lived there, as someone who knows people who live there, it's just awful!
LA has become similar, unfortunately. It's even become a joke the New Yorkers like to call LA New York West.
When you lose a sense of community, you lose a sense of self as well, I believe. You lose, even, a sense of worth, unless you are very influential in many circles, and usually that means lot of money. What about all the rest who aren't wealthy?
Here's the other problem: There are so many beautiful small cities or towns where a Jewish person can settle quite comfortably and spend thousands, even hundreds of thousands, less than it would cost to live a Big City. In my new town, for instance, which has a substantial Jewish community, and even a Jewish Federation that is friendly toward the Orthodox community (don't know about New York, but certainly not the case in LA - they hate Orthodox Jews there!), a house that would have cost between $900,000 to $1.2 million in LA costs between $125,000 and $300,000 here. And in LA, the house would be smaller as it would have no basement and a tiny backyard. And it would only be three bedrooms and 1.75 bathrooms. Here, it would be four or five bedrooms, two or three bathrooms, have a finished basement and nice sized backyard.
Take it even further. On our drive from LA to where we currently live, we went through some really gorgeous, gleaming towns that are just dying for an opportunity to have their community expand a bit. Even better, what about starting new communities, living in truly amazing places like the Rocky Mountains? On our way here, we passed through the Rockies. Let me tell you, I've never seen anything so beautiful in my life. From the bright night sky to the clean air, from the Colorado River to the wooded towns all along the way, all I could do was say "Ma Rabu Ma'asecha Hashem!" It was so clean, so crisp, and so incredibly beautiful. And yet, no Jews lived there. What's up with that?! If I weren't frum, or not Jewish, our drive would have ended right there. We'd have stopped, found some way to make a living, and settled there.
This is something I've always wondered. Why do Jews live in big, ugly cities instead of in beautiful places?
"In his sermon, delivered just two weeks after Israel marked the war’s first anniversary, Shas’ spiritual leader said, “It is no wonder that soldiers are killed in war; they don’t observe Shabbat, don’t observe the Torah, don’t pray every day, don’t lay phylacteries on a daily basis – so is it any wonder that they are killed? No, it’s not."
I just saw a classic Hebrew National commercial that shows a cow, split in two by a dotted line. They claim they are kosher because they use only the choicest cuts of meat, and fill in the front part of the cow. The tagline? No ifs ands or butts!
After all, who wants to eat a cow's butt?! See, isn't that a much better excuse Ashkenazim can use for not using the back end of the cow, rather than they don't like the idea of traiboring?
Please note: The views in this post do not necessarily reflect my own view, which is: There is no good excuse for not utilizing traiboring. It would make available twice the amount of meat there is now!!!
Its election time in America (almost) and soon the candidates will be appealing for Jewish voters by promising that they will give more money to Israel than their competitors.
But I wonder whether Israel is really better off with U.S. aid. It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, Israel would be better off with an isolationist U.S. government, one that ignored both Israel and its enemies.
Here's why:
1. In the past, the major benefit of U.S. military aid has been that it helps Israel defend against conventional attacks by Arab governments. But such a war has not taken place for 34 years. Today, Israel's major problem is terrorists who can't be stopped by tanks and similar U.S.-supplied weaponry. So the benefits of U.S. support are not what they used to be.
2. On the other hand, the costs of U.S. support are greater than in the past - especially (ironically enough) from the standpoint of Israeli hawks. He who pays the piper calls the tune- and all that foreign aid gives the U.S. some influence, I would guess, over Israeli policy. The major cost of U.S. support is the risk that the U.S. will try to pressure Israel into making nice with the Arabs. For example - in the absence of U.S. "support", would Israel have let Arafat die a natural death? And if not, would Israel be better off if it had terminated Arafat 20 years ago?
There is a new show premiering on Fox in January. Here is the description: New York City homicide detective John Amsterdam is cursed with immortality because he stopped the murder of a Native Indian girl in 1642 by stepping in front of a sword. Due to this act of kindness, the Indian girl rescued Amsterdam from the stab wound by making him immortal, but warns that it is a curse that will only be lifted when John meets his true love. Apparently, he will fall in love with a doctor in 2008. So, fret not all you singles in New York. It took this guy nearly four hundred years to find a shidduch, but he does find her...
Or maybe you should fret...Or move out of New York. Unless you want to wait four hundred years to find your Bashert...:)
My story: While I was in Yeshiva, I dated many girls. End of the day? I ended up marrying a fantastic girl (tomorrow is our anniversary!!) I met at my shul in LA, WHILE I WAS STILL IN YESHIVA IN NEW YORK AND VISITING HOME!!!
So, post your funny dating/Shidduch story in the comments!
Note to DB: See, I'm throwing curveballs here! No controversial, anti-Chareidi posts. Yet...:)
This discussion will revolve around the following; money, the stock market and loopholes in the Halacha. What could be more exciting than this?
I came upon this gem while searching for some info on the Israeli derivatives market on my Bloomberg terminal. Problems areas to be discussed are highlighted.
Moreshet's Fund Follows Jewish Law to Outperform Israeli Market 2007-05-21 19:28 (New York)By Tal BarakMay 22 (Bloomberg) -- Yaacov Moreshet's Shoam Gmisha fund,one of Israel's best performers last year, follows the dictates of Jewish law. Those rules are flexible enough to let him profit from potential gains in every stock in Israel.Moreshet, 43, runs Hilat Shoam Ltd., the biggest Israeli investment company offering mutual funds that strictly followHalakha: Jewish laws covering everything from diet to lending. Hecan't directly buy shares of companies open on the Sabbath, for instance.What he can do is buy options on the performance of Israel's principal stock indexes. Those bets, plus direct investments incompanies deemed compliant with Jewish law, helped his $35million Shoam Flexible fund become Israel's fifth-best-performing flexible fund in 2006 with a return of 23 percent, according to Meitav Investments & Securities Ltd. That is almost double the return of the benchmark TA-25 Index.``I buy the movement of the shares, I'm not its owner,'' Moreshet, who manages the equivalent of $328 million in three funds, said in his office in Ramat Gan, Israel. ``The reason I started this company was based on a religion and ideology that there's a need for values in business.''Shoam Gmisha's performance has slowed in recent months,returning 30 percent in the past year while the TA-25 Index hasreturned 25 percent. It is lagging behind in 2007, posting a 12percent gain this year, less than the 20 percent return of the benchmark index. A flexible fund lets managers choose how much toallocate to local and foreign stocks and bonds. A Detour? About 70 percent of Moreshet's assets are in options on the biggest Israeli gauges, including the TA-25 index, the Tel Aviv Financial Measure and the TA-75 Index. He can thus profit from the rise of such companies as Israel Chemicals Ltd., which operates on the Sabbath, the period of rest that starts Friday after sundown and lasts until sunset on Saturday. Israel Chemicals stock has risen 30 percent this year.Moreshet is ``using a procedure of a detour,'' said YairElek, who manages the equivalent of $35.3 million at Axioma Investment Management Ltd. in Tel Aviv. ``From the point of viewof the Halakha, this is fine, but essentially he still enjoys the gains of these companies.''Moreshet said he sees no contradiction in his investments in an index that includes a company that doesn't follow Halakha,since the fund does not actually own the shares.``I don't have an influence on the company's decisions, so there isn't a Halakha problem here,'' he said. Rabbinical Guidance Moreshet works under the guidance of 97-year-old Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, whose rulings on Jewish law and practices arewidely followed among the most religiously observant Jews.Halakha is based on religious laws whose origins appear in the Bible and in other early texts such as the Talmud.Elyashiv is one of the most influential leaders of the Orthodox community, said Menachem Friedman, a professor of sociology and anthropology at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan.Rabbi Arie Dvir, another leader in the Orthodox community,is the director of the Hilat Shoam and represents Elyashiv inorder to interpret Jewish law on a day-to-day basis.Among Moreshet's direct investments are companies headed by a religious collective settlement. Albaad Massuot Yitzhak Ltd.,for instance, which is run by Itzik Ben Hanan and makes wet wipesunder the brand name Fresh Ones. Shares of Massuot Yitzhak,Israel-based Albaad have gained 18 percent this year. Interest Laws Moreshet also invests in Clal Insurance Enterprise Holdings Ltd., Israel's biggest insurer by premiums, which has added 26 percent since the start of the year, and Bank Hapoalim Ltd.,Israel's largest lender, which has gained 17 percent.Moreshet meets with representatives of each Israeli company that he plans to invest in to make sure they follow Halakha.Financial institutions need a religious endorsement of their lending practices. According to Jewish law, interest can't be charged on any kind of transaction. All banks and insurance companies in Israel are approved by various rabbinical courtsunder these guidelines.Moreshet also has other considerations in mind when choosing investments, such as having the option to change his position in the market in an hour.``The most important thing for me is liquidity,'' he said.``If there is a dramatic event such as soldiers being kidnapped,I want to know that I can immediately change my position in the market.'' Wartime SellingOn July 12, 2006, the Shiite extremist Hezbollah group attacked an Israeli army unit on the border between Israel and Lebanon and captured two soldiers. The TA-25 slumped 4.2 percenton that day -- after Moreshet had sold most of his shares in less than an hour.Because he invests in indexes, Moreshet's fund can profit from the rise in shares of companies deemed non-compliant, such as Israel Chemicals, which harvests minerals from the Dead Sea tomake fertilizers.It has a 9.5 percent weighting in the TA-25, the largest along with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.Over the past five years, the Shoam Gmisha fund has outperformed the TA-25. It has returned 127 percent since 2002,compared with the benchmark index's 99 percent advance.Moreshet also operates a Halakha bond and a dollar fund. The three funds received the highest rating of three diamonds by Maalot The Israel Securities Rating Co., which is affiliated with Standard & Poor's. Outside Israel Moreshet, who is married with three children, graduated witha bachelor's degree in economics and accounting and a master's in business administration from Bar-Ilan University. He previouslywas head of provident funds, long-term investment plans thatprovide tax benefits, at Clal Finance Batucha Investment Management Ltd. and was the deputy director of financial planning at the Transportation Ministry.Moreshet said about 8 percent of his fund is invested abroad, mainly in indexes in China, Russia and South America. He has to make sure the person who heads the foreign company he is considering investing in isn't Jewish and therefore isn't subject to the restrictions of Jewish law.The company has doubled its assets each year for the past five years, except in 2006 when they tripled. Moreshet says he issure investors are drawn in part to the fund's religious affiliation.``Most people believe there is a God and they like tradition,'' he said. ``They want to be able to get a day ofrest. Otherwise we all go back 2,000 years to the epoch of slavery.'' --Editor: Taylor (aes)Story illustration: Enter {TA-25 MOV } for a chartof the share movements for members of the Tel Aviv StockExchange's benchmark index. To contact the reporter on this story:Tal Barak in Tel Aviv at +972-3-754-1151 ortbarak@bloomberg.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the basic transgressions you might be committing by buying a single stock in a company. (From Shulchan Aruch) From JLaw-Stockmarket from Orach Chaim - Shabbat prohibitions such as profiting from one's business, employing Jews and working animals; possessing leaven during Passover,from Yoreh De'ah - benefiting from a mixture of milk and meat, from avoda zara, and from orla; lending and borrowing at interest, doing business in forbidden foodstuffs; from Even Ha-Ezer - being a partner in licentious activities;from Choshen Mishpat - being a partner in robbery, withholding of wages, or commission of damages. Mr Moreshet refers to the following loopholes when he is referring to the fact that he does not hold ownership in these companies which are melacha Shabbat. JLaw-Stockmarket B. SHABBAT There are numerous prohibitions which relate to running a business on Shabbat. Two of them, working one's slave or beast, are of Torah origin and are dependent on ownership. Practically, the problem is limited to animals, since few-publicly owned corporations own slaves (though it may be that the definition of slave or servant for the purposes of Shabbat is broader than for other laws; see Rambam Shabbat 20:14). It is advisable not to hold stock of a corporation which owns animals that labor on Shabbat.The other restrictions, relating to the ban on directing others to do one's labor on Shabbat or even having them do so without orders, are of rabbinic origin and relate primarily to direct control. According to R. Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC Vol. IV, 54), control is in the hands of management; the management resembles a sharecropper or contractor who acts on his own initiative, and not a hired worker. Therefore, a Jew may hold even a majority interest in a corporation which does business on Shabbat, provided that the controlling management is predominantly non-Jewish. (Minchat Yitzchak Vol. III, 1 rules likewise). In the case where the Jew is the primary owner, his ownership should, for appearances' sake, not be publicly known.If the management is primarily Jewish, severe problems arise, since it is still prohibited to have a Jew work on Shabbat even on his own initiative. Several authorities have permitted, in case of great need, a partnership with a Jew who would have worked on Shabbat regardless, if a condition is made that the business belongs to the shomer-Shabbat partner only on weekdays (Igrot Moshe OC Vol. IV, 55, Chelkat Ya'akov Vol. II, 54, Tzitz Eliezer OC Vol. II, 65); perhaps the company management, who are the representatives of the shareholders, are empowered to authorize such a condition with an individual shareholder.If the company's business cannot be conducted without Shabbat operations, this resembles the case of having the market day on Shabbat, and it is difficult to be lenient (see Shulchan Arukh OC 307:4 and Mishna Berura 15, Sha'ar Ha-tziun 15). This presumably refers to a case where business is impracticable, and not merely unprofitable, on weekdays only. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I seriously have a problem with his detour method. He is indirectly reaping gains from companies who are mechalel Shabbat and which are represented on the index. I have never heard of any true frum Jews who indirectly reap gains from from a mixture of milk and meat, or from Avodah Zarah, or from orla; lending and borrowing at interest, from businessess in forbidden foodstuffs or from robberies. Have you? Would you invest in this fund? I wouldn't. I am also dying to know if this Halacha bond of his needs a heter iska. Obviously at the time of the transaction it is obvious who the creditor and debitor are. JLaw-Halacha of Ribis E. State of Israel BondsOne of the most popular and efficacious means of financing the State of Israel's burgeoning needs is the sale of bonds. Is a Heter Iska required for every transaction? Rav Pinchas Teitz, writing in Hapardes some 30 years ago, rationalizes the practice of selling Israeli bonds without a Heter Iska on the basis that Ribis implies a known creditor and debtor. Here, however, one cannot identify the individuals backing the bonds. Nor at the time of the transaction does the lender know the debtor's identity. Furthermore, it could be argued that all bonds are sold through a broker, invoking Rashi's opinion that is not prohibited. He also raises the corporate status of the Jewish State, the fact that the Ribis involved in each bond is less than a Perutah (the halachic equivalent of a penny) per citizen of Israel, and interestingly enough, the argument that Arabs are also issuers of Israeli bonds, thus involving a non-Jewish partner in the transaction. However, a respondent in the periodical Hamaor (Jubilee Volume) strongly disputes Rav Teitz's assertion and requires a Heter Iska for bonds.
The questions are: 1) Would you invest in this fund? 2) If, not, why not? 3) Are you comfortable with his detour method? If, yes, would you be comfortable with earning indirect gains from other prohibited activies listed in the Shulhan Aruch? 3) Do you think his halacha bond needs a heter iska? Crossposted at:Rebelwithacause Blog and my trading blog.
Twice in the past few weeks, I've heard people mention "the decline of the generations" - the idea that each generation after Sinai is a little worse than the last.
But this idea doesn't seem to me to square with common sense or with the Tanach.
If every single member of a later generation is worse, then Rashi and Rambam are worse than Ahab or Manasseh- obviously a bizarre result.
If you just assume that the generational average declines a little every few decades, we still have a problem. During the time of the Judges, Jews were massacring each other in a civil war (Judges 19-21). The Tanach leaves the impression that idol worship was quite common during the First Temple period (or at least near its end). Are either of these generations really better in any way then the generations of pious Jews following them?
More broadly: is there any way for this concept to make sense?
Pfeh! You say. Surely, the great kofer littlefoxling, known for spewing the most rabid acrimonious, bitter, spiteful, rancorous, unabashed kefirah in the blogosphere can easily compose a few kefirah posts.
But, no. This is dovbear, and acidic negative, aggressive molestation of the Torah won’t be tolerated. I must harmonize my kefirah with Torah True Judaism. That is a challenge.
So, instead, I’m actually going to defend Judaism from a classic skeptic attack. Skeptics assert that believers are biased on the following 5 grounds:
1. The evidence overwhelmingly undermines Judaism, suggesting people don’t believe due to evidence. 2. For FFB’s, leaving yiddeshkite generates psychological and social difficulties, creating a bias for FFB’s to stay frum. 3. Almost everyone in the world follows their parent’s religion. It is highly unlikely that this is due to coincidence. The more logical explanation has to do with indoctrination and bias. 4. The majority of Jews choose even their sub-type, or sub-sub-type based on their sect of birth. Thus, people with MO parents have a higher tendency to be MO than those born to UO parents. 5. Most OJ’s have never studied other religions; often other religions are flat out banned. This is no the behavior of unbiased inquiry.
OK, that’s the question, here’s my answer:
It should be obvious from the above that most people in the world do not expend much effort contemplating their religiosity. They simply accept certain dogmas and rituals and move on. This phenomenon, though, is not limited to religion, but really to any sphere of human experience beyond the personal minutia and emotions that comprise day to day life. Most people don’t think about ethics, philosophy, science, or culture at all.
I think the reason for this is that life just isn’t about philosophy, art, or poetry. It *is* about the day to day minutia and emotions that comprise the symphony of life. We are *not* philosophy textbooks, we are organisms who billions of years of evolution have programmed to be concerned with things like food and reproduction, not contemplation. Things like culture, religion, philosophy just aren’t things that concern the average person. They are the backdrop on which life transpires. But, the real story isn’t in the dogma which is taken for granted, but what is done with it.
Now, on some level, this already explains why people succumb to bias in the area of religion, because like most meta-issues, they just haven’t thought about it. To some extent, people don’t really even have a choice in the matter. Our weltanschauung is very much shaped by our frum upbringing and our ability to shake it is quite small. It is a part of us. But, here’s the key point: that actually is not a big deal. Life just isn’t about religion. Religion is just the backdrop on which life transpires and so it really doesn’t matter much against which landscape ours transpires. What’s important is how we live our lives.
But, still, you might ask, how does this justify religion? Just because people tend to accept things on faith doesn’t mean that religion is any more true.
But, here’s a novel thought: maybe religion actually isn’t about the meta-issues of God, the Exodus, or Sinai. Maybe religion actually is about every day life, about love, hate, fear, and ecstasy. If what’s really going on in life isn’t a conversation about God or Sinai, but a conversation about the human condition, about ethics, love, fear, things everyone can relate to, then it stands to reason that much of religious contemplation is about that as well. The thing is, the language people are using is a religious one because that is the backdrop of their culture, the fabric with which they can weave their contemplative tapestry, but it isn't what they really mean. Terms like Sinai or Moses aren’t meant to refer to actual historical figures, but to ideas that are actually relevant to people. So, for example, consider all of the ethical mitzvos. You could look at these as Divine edicts bereft of any relevance to the modern soul. On the other hand, you could look at these as general expressions of the moral imperative couched in religious terminology. In that case, it doesn’t matter so much whether we are using the language or Allah, Jesus, or H-sh-m. What’s important is the part which is relevant to every person’s day to day life. After all, that is the portion of religion that has any meaning to humans. The religious nomenclature is just the language to describe experiential reality as it is the framework of human cognition. Another example: consider all of the halachos that relate to nature. For example, when one sees a mountain one should bless “ose maaseh b’reshis,” a blessing to the Lord who created the creation of Genesis. You could view that as a specific praise to a guy with a beard in the sky, or you could say this is a contemplative, experiential, meditative expression of an aspect of human experience, the awe and wonderment we all feel at seeing mountains. The thing is that that emotion, the trite emotion that the person actually feels, is expressed in religious terminology. Take, even Shabbos which is “zecher limaaseh bireshis.” It doesn’t have to be about the guy in the sky. It can be about our own desire to celebrate the natural order.
Thus, religious people actually aren’t biased, nor are religions self contradictory. All religions are basically saying the same thing. It’s just that Jews use the language of Judaism and Christians use the language of Christianity since that is framework of their discourse. In other words, saying religious people are biased is like saying Americans are biased to speak English and French people are biased to speak French.
I offer the above as a defense for Judaism against the claim of bias, though I will admit I may have modified the concept of Judaism from its traditional understanding ever so slightly. So which is better? An indefensible Judaism that you grew up with, or a defensible one that differs slightly from what you are used to? The choice is yours.
-thumb.jpg)
