A guest post by Hadassah Sabo Milner
Why is smoking acceptable in most yeshivot? Ok, maybe not acceptable, but not banned. Not actively discouraged. Why is it that there is no hue and cry over this dangerous pastime? My son who is entering Grade 9 has informed me that most of the boys in his class have smoked at least one cigarette, while others are well in the process of nurturing a full blown nicotine addiction. My son thank G-d has a head on his shoulders and has told me that it’s a disgusting thing to do and he would never smoke. Ever. (Yeah I know you are laughing, but you wait till you have teenage kids, you will desperately want to believe them too).
He has even told me the lengths his school chums go to to get hold of cigarettes, as they are all underage. Money changing hands for goods in front of Montreal Kosher. Older bochurim procuring for the younger ones.
Many of the rebbeim and roshei yeshivah smoke, and if they do, it stands to reason that the young men they are overseeing will copy them. But interestingly enough if you are a frum yeshivishe woman, you will never be seen smoking. The women will be excommunicated if they so much as touched a cancer stick. Obviously us women have far more sense than some of the menfolk. We know smoking kills. (although we had a French teacher in high school, totally frum and bewigged, and we saw her smoking a time or two – scandalous! Her wig coulda caught on fire!!!)
I have read that some Rebbeim have outlawed smoking due to the harmful effects, and others have discouraged it as it is bitul zman, a waste of time. Didn’t Rav Moshe Feinstein of blessed memory himself say (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:76) there was an issur against starting smoking?
My son told me that the boys in his yeshivah explain that learning full time is stressful and smoking eases the stress. Then why are they not smoking marijuana, for the spiritual high it could bring? (I am not seriously advocating drug use…just making a point)
Walking my son to school sometimes we pass by the beis medrash entrance. We see a ton of cigarette butts outside. There is never a time when it is free from this disgusting evidence of death waiting to happen. Where are the “no smoking” signs? Oh wait, I should be thankful they are not allowed to smoke IN the beis medrash?
SMOKING KILLS! Hello? Anyone know that in white shirt black shiny suit world?
These people would not even dream of putting a slice of ham in their mouths, but poison is ok?
According to this website there are over 4000 ingredients in a cigarette including wine and yeast and chocolate – all kosher? I never saw a hechsher on a cigarette pack in my life…. Here is a list of 599 ingredients in a cigarette - - smoking a stick of treife pepperoni would probably be better healthwise than smoking a cigarette. But the pepperoni would be treife…and cigarettes aren’t?? What’s the halachic ruling on that? Anyone?
On pesach they even certify as kosher for Passover products that don’t go near the mouth – toilet paper, cleaning products etc. Yet these odious pieces of death are inhaled and ingested and need no certification? It makes no sense. As far as I am aware (and I have four boys in the yeshiva world) our educational establishments are doing nothing to deter the young males in their care away from nicotine. The rest of the world knows it is not cool to smoke. Yeshivish boys apparently still think it is.
Venishmartem meod lenafshoteichem (Devarim 4.15)– “you should carefully guard your soul”. Smoking is the total opposite to this mitzvah. You can be as learned and as “frum” as you like, but in my book, if you smoke you may as well go out and eat treife. You have no respect for you body that was created b’tzelem elokim – would you blow smoke in G-d’s face?
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
God as a blogger?
In Parshas Chukas, God behaves almost like a blogger. Rather than authoring his own material, our Lord and Creator twice references the published work of other people.
The first occurrence is a cite from the the Book of the Wars of the Lord a book that was lost, and excluded from the canon.
Robert Alter speculates that the book was not preserved because the dieties and events it describes were too mythological. Later authorities, he says, were uncomfortable with a book that represented God as a warrior, in direct combat with Israel's enemies, rather than working through the agency of Israel. I'm not entirely sure why Alter feels comfortable with such a speculation given that just a brief snippet from the book is extant, but there it is. If Judaism has another theory to explain why this book was forgotten, I don't know it.
The little bit of this book that we have seems seriously wierd. In the King James translation, it reads as follows:
"...Waheb in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon and the slopes of the ravines that lead to the site of Ar and lie along the border of Moab."
What this means is anyone's guess, forcing us to ask: If God had something to say, why didn't He put it in His own ordinary, easy to understand words instead of borrowing something impenetrable from someone else's book?
The second occurrence of divine blogging is even more mysterious. After describing an Israelite victory over Sihon king of the Amorites, the Torah tells us the land Israel took from Sihon first belonged to Moab. The claim is supported not with a historical notice, or a narrative assertion, but with a snippet of poetry. Yes, poetry. The lines are attributed, vaguely, to "moshlim" who (Alter again) may have been something like the Celtic bards who composed and recited verses celebrating the legendary exploits of chieftains and heroes. Today, we might call them folk singers.
In the KJV, their song is translated this way:
Come to Heshbon, let it be built, Let the city of Sihon be repaired.
For fire went out from Heshbon, A flame from the city of Sihon;
It consumed Ar of Moab, The lords of the heights of the Arnon.
Woe to you, Moab! You have perished, O people of Chemosh!
He has given his sons as fugitives, And his daughters into captivity,
To Sihon king of the Amorites. “But we have shot at them; Heshbon has perished as far as Dibon.
Then we laid waste as far as Nophah, Which reaches to Medeba.
For those of us saddled with a Torah-true perspective this is about as queer as a three dollar bill. Secular poetry? In the Holy Torah? It's a little like using a Bob Dylan verse to clinch an argument about halacha. (This doesn't work) (Unless getting tossed out of class is your goal)
Again, we're fleft wondering why God preferred this poem to His own writing.
The first occurrence is a cite from the the Book of the Wars of the Lord a book that was lost, and excluded from the canon.
Robert Alter speculates that the book was not preserved because the dieties and events it describes were too mythological. Later authorities, he says, were uncomfortable with a book that represented God as a warrior, in direct combat with Israel's enemies, rather than working through the agency of Israel. I'm not entirely sure why Alter feels comfortable with such a speculation given that just a brief snippet from the book is extant, but there it is. If Judaism has another theory to explain why this book was forgotten, I don't know it.
The little bit of this book that we have seems seriously wierd. In the King James translation, it reads as follows:
"...Waheb in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon and the slopes of the ravines that lead to the site of Ar and lie along the border of Moab."
What this means is anyone's guess, forcing us to ask: If God had something to say, why didn't He put it in His own ordinary, easy to understand words instead of borrowing something impenetrable from someone else's book?
The second occurrence of divine blogging is even more mysterious. After describing an Israelite victory over Sihon king of the Amorites, the Torah tells us the land Israel took from Sihon first belonged to Moab. The claim is supported not with a historical notice, or a narrative assertion, but with a snippet of poetry. Yes, poetry. The lines are attributed, vaguely, to "moshlim" who (Alter again) may have been something like the Celtic bards who composed and recited verses celebrating the legendary exploits of chieftains and heroes. Today, we might call them folk singers.
In the KJV, their song is translated this way:
Come to Heshbon, let it be built, Let the city of Sihon be repaired.
For fire went out from Heshbon, A flame from the city of Sihon;
It consumed Ar of Moab, The lords of the heights of the Arnon.
Woe to you, Moab! You have perished, O people of Chemosh!
He has given his sons as fugitives, And his daughters into captivity,
To Sihon king of the Amorites. “But we have shot at them; Heshbon has perished as far as Dibon.
Then we laid waste as far as Nophah, Which reaches to Medeba.
For those of us saddled with a Torah-true perspective this is about as queer as a three dollar bill. Secular poetry? In the Holy Torah? It's a little like using a Bob Dylan verse to clinch an argument about halacha. (This doesn't work) (Unless getting tossed out of class is your goal)
Again, we're fleft wondering why God preferred this poem to His own writing.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Silence
A guest post by KosherAcademic
I am not one hundred percent happy with Halakhah. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m observant to the best of my ability; I keep strictly kosher, I observe Shabbat and the Chagim, and I keep the mitzvot…again, to the best of my ability. I live in a Modern Orthodox community which I love, and I am surrounded by others who hold the mitzvot in a very similar fashion to the way that I hold them. But I struggle with certain mitzvot. I pretend to the outside world that everything is copasetic, because I am terrified to admit to someone that I have some issues, to see the (imagined) look on their faces when they learn that I have a hard time doing x mitzvah, or that I see y mitzvah as completely backwards and pointless. But I remain silent.
No one is able to do all 613 of the commandments. To be an observant Jew, one’s purpose is to strive to observe all the mitzvot. There is, however, a problem of Orthodox Jews going off the derekh, a problem we seem to hear about more and more these days – and while the discussion of Jews leaving Orthodoxy is not the main focus of this post, it is related, an extension, a possible consequence of the enforced silence that I am addressing here. What I do not see or hear about, but what I imagine must be there, is that others struggle with certain mitzvot, too.
Why the enforced silence? Is it from community pressure to perform—or at least look like one is performing— up to par with what is considered acceptable? It may very well be. When we moved from a fairly black-hat community in Chicago (where we certainly didn’t fit in) to the very liberal, nay, very, very liberal community in Cambridge, Massachusetts when I did my Masters degree, initially the laxity felt like freedom from oppression. Finally, I didn’t have to worry about the weird looks I would get when I went out in a pair of pants (of course, I did get weird looks when I kept my hair covered, but that is another story). But what I realized, after living there for two years, is that the community serves a purpose in this regard. It helps keep one in line. Strangely enough, that worry that someone might see you doing something that may be considered…inappropriate…can keep you from doing it.
But why should that community pressure require silence? One of the reasons I became observant was because of the openness—I thought—with which we could ask questions about anything. And when I was first becoming observant I could ask questions and challenge ideas, and my questions and challenges were tolerated and even encouraged. But once you know enough to “fit in” to a community, you are (silently) required to do just that: fit in. Do not rock the boat.
Let me explain it this way: Imagine one is walking down the derekh to do a mitzvah, and one encounters a roadblock. It doesn’t really make a difference what the roadblock is—it may be only in one’s mind or it may be larger, perhaps a cultural issue. However, if one can’t find the way around the roadblock, then one never reaches the mitzvah. At that point, you are basically stuck at the roadblock for the rest of your life, perhaps striving toward but never actually reaching the mitzvah, or, you end up just going off the road (ie off the derekh). How much easier would it be for one who is encountering a roadblock to be able to have a frank and honest discussion with others who have encountered similar roadblocks? But these discussions are not happening. People are too embarrassed or ashamed to admit they’ve hit a roadblock.
This silence, I think, is unhealthy. I am not suggesting support circles that acknowledge people’s lack of commitment without holding them accountable. We are, after all, responsible for the mitzvot, and as mentioned above, as observant Jews we should be striving to do all we can do. But if there was open dialogue with less judgment, perhaps those of us who do have issues with certain mitzvot would find a better way to overcome our hesitation in working towards observing them.
But if all you’re going to do is tell me to get past the roadblock, to just do the mitzvah, without offering possible solutions to get past it the issues, well, you’re not helping.
Related
Please be sure to read DYS's guest post from this morning here
I am not one hundred percent happy with Halakhah. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m observant to the best of my ability; I keep strictly kosher, I observe Shabbat and the Chagim, and I keep the mitzvot…again, to the best of my ability. I live in a Modern Orthodox community which I love, and I am surrounded by others who hold the mitzvot in a very similar fashion to the way that I hold them. But I struggle with certain mitzvot. I pretend to the outside world that everything is copasetic, because I am terrified to admit to someone that I have some issues, to see the (imagined) look on their faces when they learn that I have a hard time doing x mitzvah, or that I see y mitzvah as completely backwards and pointless. But I remain silent.
No one is able to do all 613 of the commandments. To be an observant Jew, one’s purpose is to strive to observe all the mitzvot. There is, however, a problem of Orthodox Jews going off the derekh, a problem we seem to hear about more and more these days – and while the discussion of Jews leaving Orthodoxy is not the main focus of this post, it is related, an extension, a possible consequence of the enforced silence that I am addressing here. What I do not see or hear about, but what I imagine must be there, is that others struggle with certain mitzvot, too.
Why the enforced silence? Is it from community pressure to perform—or at least look like one is performing— up to par with what is considered acceptable? It may very well be. When we moved from a fairly black-hat community in Chicago (where we certainly didn’t fit in) to the very liberal, nay, very, very liberal community in Cambridge, Massachusetts when I did my Masters degree, initially the laxity felt like freedom from oppression. Finally, I didn’t have to worry about the weird looks I would get when I went out in a pair of pants (of course, I did get weird looks when I kept my hair covered, but that is another story). But what I realized, after living there for two years, is that the community serves a purpose in this regard. It helps keep one in line. Strangely enough, that worry that someone might see you doing something that may be considered…inappropriate…can keep you from doing it.
But why should that community pressure require silence? One of the reasons I became observant was because of the openness—I thought—with which we could ask questions about anything. And when I was first becoming observant I could ask questions and challenge ideas, and my questions and challenges were tolerated and even encouraged. But once you know enough to “fit in” to a community, you are (silently) required to do just that: fit in. Do not rock the boat.
Let me explain it this way: Imagine one is walking down the derekh to do a mitzvah, and one encounters a roadblock. It doesn’t really make a difference what the roadblock is—it may be only in one’s mind or it may be larger, perhaps a cultural issue. However, if one can’t find the way around the roadblock, then one never reaches the mitzvah. At that point, you are basically stuck at the roadblock for the rest of your life, perhaps striving toward but never actually reaching the mitzvah, or, you end up just going off the road (ie off the derekh). How much easier would it be for one who is encountering a roadblock to be able to have a frank and honest discussion with others who have encountered similar roadblocks? But these discussions are not happening. People are too embarrassed or ashamed to admit they’ve hit a roadblock.
This silence, I think, is unhealthy. I am not suggesting support circles that acknowledge people’s lack of commitment without holding them accountable. We are, after all, responsible for the mitzvot, and as mentioned above, as observant Jews we should be striving to do all we can do. But if there was open dialogue with less judgment, perhaps those of us who do have issues with certain mitzvot would find a better way to overcome our hesitation in working towards observing them.
But if all you’re going to do is tell me to get past the roadblock, to just do the mitzvah, without offering possible solutions to get past it the issues, well, you’re not helping.
Related
DovBear on the Parsha
I swear I'm blushing as I type this, but please go read the super kind review of my book posted by E-Fink.
Is meat slaughtered by women kosher?
A guest post by DYS
Gil Student, over at Hirhurim, recently posted “a loose translation of notes from lectures by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik” examining the issue of whether women can be slaughterers (shochatot). Gil, in his introduction, links it to the issue of women Rabbis and concludes that if shochatot are not allowed, neither are female Rabbis.
The Rav brings a number of sources that essentially prohibit women slaughterers based on the fact that a shochet is a communal position and women cannot hold communal positions. But the Shulchan Aruch writes that women can be shochatot. The Rama, however, says that they may not serve in that capacity because the custom is that they haven't been doing so. That seems like an extremely poor and circular argument. We don't allow it because we haven't been allowing it. So all the arguments against women slaughterers seem to be based only on social considerations, not solid halacha. And many do allow women to slaughter for themselves, just forbidding it for the community. So Gil is right in a way, by tying female rabbis to female slaughterers. The argument against both are based only on social considerations and there seems to be plenty of halachic room to permit them now when social circumstances have changed.
(By the way, since the Shulchan Aruch permits women slaughterers, and Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch without the supplement of the Rama, do they allow shochatot today? If not, why not?)
So should shochatot be permitted? Basically, even according to those who forbid it, it seems to me that they would probably permit it b’dieved, after the fact. Meaning, if someone ate meat slaughtered by a woman skilled in all the halachot of shechita, there was no sin. The meat was kosher.
But despite my progressive stance on most issues relating to women and Judaism, I'm going to invoke social considerations to explain my opinion that except in limited situations, it probably would be unwise to institute it as a general custom at this time.
Let's first be clear about what we're asking and who would care about such an innovation.
There are several type of people who keep kosher. There's the "kosher by ingredients" crowd. There's the "any hechsher, as long as it's on the package" crowd. And then there's the Orthodox standard, meaning hechsherim generally accepted by the community.
Let’s break it down by denomination. The Reform movement doesn't have any official kashrut standards, though some individual members may keep some personal strictures.
The Conservative movement has official standards, but doesn't have a kashrut supervision infrastructure of their own. So they generally rely on Orthodox hechsherim, but will use ones that aren’t widely accepted in the Orthodox community. For example, while the Conservative movement officially endorses Hebrew National as acceptable for consumption, they do so on the basis of HN's new Orthodox hechsher, Triangle-K. (While T-K isn't accepted in much of the Orthodox community, the Rabbis there are Orthodox. The issue of T-K certifying HN's non-glatt meat is another post.)
That leaves the Orthodox community, which will only consume meat certified by communally accepted agencies.
What if the Conservative movement had its own kashrut supervision agency? Then I see nothing wrong with their using women slaughterers. Orthodox people wouldn't be eating that meat anyway, no matter what gender slaughtered the animal.
But within the world of Orthodox hechsherim, it's a different story. What if Rabbi Avi Weiss decided to create a kashrut agency? (Please note that the following scenario is totally hypothetical and is just to illustrate my point and does not represent any known plans of Rabbi Weiss)
He has already created the new female equivalent of Rabbi, the Maharat, a development of which I wholeheartedly approve. And I presume that to receive smicha, a Maharat must study the same traditional curriculum as a male Rabbi, which would include Yoreh Deah, the volume of Shulchan Aruch that contains the laws of kashrut, including shechita.
So what if this hypothetical kashrut agency started using shochatot?
The institution of the Maharat is already controversial. But its effect is limited to the communities in which these women serve and doesn't spill over. But kashrut is a social intitution as much as a halachic one. People eat in one another's homes and celebratory affairs based on shared assumptions of kashrut reliability. Were Rabbi Weiss, or any figure in Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy to institute the practice of shochatot, there would immediately be a split in the social fabric of Orthodoxy. The implicit assumption of reliable kashrut upon entering the home of someone who was LWMO or observant Conservative would be gone. And the uproar would cause fissures and public discord on a huge scale. The unspoken social compact of kashrut would be broken. It is for that reason that I would be wary of such an innovation at this time.
However, what if Rabbi David Silber, of Drisha, (again, totally hypothetical) decided that a shochetet was halachically permissable, but rather than endorse the practice for the wider community, decided to have a special event at Drisha with meat slaughtered by a shochetet. If he was comfortable of the halachic permissibility, why not?
Social reasons should not hold back halachically permissible practices. However, extreme social disruption should be considered before moving too far, too fast
Gil Student, over at Hirhurim, recently posted “a loose translation of notes from lectures by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik” examining the issue of whether women can be slaughterers (shochatot). Gil, in his introduction, links it to the issue of women Rabbis and concludes that if shochatot are not allowed, neither are female Rabbis.
The Rav brings a number of sources that essentially prohibit women slaughterers based on the fact that a shochet is a communal position and women cannot hold communal positions. But the Shulchan Aruch writes that women can be shochatot. The Rama, however, says that they may not serve in that capacity because the custom is that they haven't been doing so. That seems like an extremely poor and circular argument. We don't allow it because we haven't been allowing it. So all the arguments against women slaughterers seem to be based only on social considerations, not solid halacha. And many do allow women to slaughter for themselves, just forbidding it for the community. So Gil is right in a way, by tying female rabbis to female slaughterers. The argument against both are based only on social considerations and there seems to be plenty of halachic room to permit them now when social circumstances have changed.
(By the way, since the Shulchan Aruch permits women slaughterers, and Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch without the supplement of the Rama, do they allow shochatot today? If not, why not?)
So should shochatot be permitted? Basically, even according to those who forbid it, it seems to me that they would probably permit it b’dieved, after the fact. Meaning, if someone ate meat slaughtered by a woman skilled in all the halachot of shechita, there was no sin. The meat was kosher.
But despite my progressive stance on most issues relating to women and Judaism, I'm going to invoke social considerations to explain my opinion that except in limited situations, it probably would be unwise to institute it as a general custom at this time.
Let's first be clear about what we're asking and who would care about such an innovation.
There are several type of people who keep kosher. There's the "kosher by ingredients" crowd. There's the "any hechsher, as long as it's on the package" crowd. And then there's the Orthodox standard, meaning hechsherim generally accepted by the community.
Let’s break it down by denomination. The Reform movement doesn't have any official kashrut standards, though some individual members may keep some personal strictures.
The Conservative movement has official standards, but doesn't have a kashrut supervision infrastructure of their own. So they generally rely on Orthodox hechsherim, but will use ones that aren’t widely accepted in the Orthodox community. For example, while the Conservative movement officially endorses Hebrew National as acceptable for consumption, they do so on the basis of HN's new Orthodox hechsher, Triangle-K. (While T-K isn't accepted in much of the Orthodox community, the Rabbis there are Orthodox. The issue of T-K certifying HN's non-glatt meat is another post.)
That leaves the Orthodox community, which will only consume meat certified by communally accepted agencies.
What if the Conservative movement had its own kashrut supervision agency? Then I see nothing wrong with their using women slaughterers. Orthodox people wouldn't be eating that meat anyway, no matter what gender slaughtered the animal.
But within the world of Orthodox hechsherim, it's a different story. What if Rabbi Avi Weiss decided to create a kashrut agency? (Please note that the following scenario is totally hypothetical and is just to illustrate my point and does not represent any known plans of Rabbi Weiss)
He has already created the new female equivalent of Rabbi, the Maharat, a development of which I wholeheartedly approve. And I presume that to receive smicha, a Maharat must study the same traditional curriculum as a male Rabbi, which would include Yoreh Deah, the volume of Shulchan Aruch that contains the laws of kashrut, including shechita.
So what if this hypothetical kashrut agency started using shochatot?
The institution of the Maharat is already controversial. But its effect is limited to the communities in which these women serve and doesn't spill over. But kashrut is a social intitution as much as a halachic one. People eat in one another's homes and celebratory affairs based on shared assumptions of kashrut reliability. Were Rabbi Weiss, or any figure in Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy to institute the practice of shochatot, there would immediately be a split in the social fabric of Orthodoxy. The implicit assumption of reliable kashrut upon entering the home of someone who was LWMO or observant Conservative would be gone. And the uproar would cause fissures and public discord on a huge scale. The unspoken social compact of kashrut would be broken. It is for that reason that I would be wary of such an innovation at this time.
However, what if Rabbi David Silber, of Drisha, (again, totally hypothetical) decided that a shochetet was halachically permissable, but rather than endorse the practice for the wider community, decided to have a special event at Drisha with meat slaughtered by a shochetet. If he was comfortable of the halachic permissibility, why not?
Social reasons should not hold back halachically permissible practices. However, extreme social disruption should be considered before moving too far, too fast
Monday, July 06, 2009
Am I a Prophet ..or What?
by the Bray of Fundie
Banned from commenting I must seek alternative outlets for my blogging addiction by posting, frequently and annoyingly. So although I posted a little talked about masterpiece this morning I am here again to tell you that...I CALLED IT.
For years I have been confidently predicting that various egalitarian and hip, politically correct movements championed by Orthodoxies extreme left wing would, some day soon, foment the next great schism in world Jewry and ultimately lead to yet another branch to further split a fractured nation/faith community.
Well it seems that day is nigh. Modern Orthodoxy...beware your own left flank.
Search for more information about branches of Judaism and the schisms that caused them at 4torah.com.
Banned from commenting I must seek alternative outlets for my blogging addiction by posting, frequently and annoyingly. So although I posted a little talked about masterpiece this morning I am here again to tell you that...I CALLED IT.
For years I have been confidently predicting that various egalitarian and hip, politically correct movements championed by Orthodoxies extreme left wing would, some day soon, foment the next great schism in world Jewry and ultimately lead to yet another branch to further split a fractured nation/faith community.
Well it seems that day is nigh. Modern Orthodoxy...beware your own left flank.
Search for more information about branches of Judaism and the schisms that caused them at 4torah.com.
On Authority and Autonomy
A classic Mussar Schmuess by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz in Sha'arei Chaim-Sikhos Mussar 78
Mistranslated, misconstrued and maladatpted
by the Bray of Fundie,
Many Meforshim puzzle over the description of the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah as the Khukas HaTorah = the statute of the Torah rather than as the Khukas haTaharah= "the statute of purity" or Khukas HaTumah="the statute of impurity". The Ohr HaKhayim answers that observance of this most inscrutable of Khukim= the irrational Mitzvos that offend reason and lack rationale, is reckoned as observance of the entire Torah. Fulfilling a Mitzvah absent a rational reason testifies to the faith one invests in the Metzaveh=Commander and assent to fulfill all that the Creators desires.
Elaborating on this Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz makes several observations:
1. That when people "do the right thing" because of their internal moral compass they are not manifesting subservience to HaShems authority. The likelihood of their internal moral compass being their motivation for doing good and eschewing evil rather than being motivated by subservience to HaShems authority is much greater when they are observing Mishpatim=the rational Mitzvos. They do those Mitzvos because THEY hold it is the right thing to do. In fact when the Mitzvah in question is a "khok" then, by definition, it is almost impossible that the motivation to perform it is internal. On the contrary, the mind cannot accept it and the emotions often recoil as a result. Performing Khukim brings a new "subservience to HaShems authority" sensibility even to ones performance of Mishpatim.
2. Human nature is very resistant to this type of subservience or to anything that will keep us chained or bound. Human beings affirm their own autonomy and it's trappings of freedom of conscience and of movement whenever possible and recoil from any authority even, or especially, a Divine one, that would demand total surrender of personal autonomy. This authoritarian compulsion is another word for slavery and humans desire freedom and total autonomy.
Among his many proofs is the case of Shimee ben Geirah whom Shlomo HaMelekh "tricked" into incurring the death penalty (to fulfill his fathers deathbed vendetta) by limiting his movement to the Jerusalem City limits.
3. Ba'al Pe'or was the idolatry that the daughters of Moav seduced the Bnei Yisrael into worshipping as a precondition for fornication. Rav Chaim opines that the bizarre cult of Ba'al Pe'or is predicated on the human desire for autonomy and TOTAL liberation from external authority. It was worshipped by defecation upon the icon itself. It was, says Rav Chaim, the religion of non-religion, the worship of denigrating worship and subservience. The exercise and demonstration of "Nothing being sacred". In essence the creed of Baa'l Peor can be summarized as follows: "So you're my god? So YOU"RE gonna tell ME what to do and not do? I s**t on you!"
But it is not merely some quirky historic relic of a bygone ANE culture. It is, concludes Rav Chaim, the defining Zeitgeist of our own era.
Addendum: Rav Chaim's approach makes me wonder; were all the esteemed authors in the genre of Taamei haMitzvos literature, including works e.g. the Moreh Nevukhim, the Kuzari, the Sefer Hakhinukh, to name a few, guilty of וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר, לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל= "Don't bait another to sin" by providing intellectually and emotionally satisfying reasons "tastes/flavors" for so many of the Mitzvos,-Khukim and Mishpatim alike? Aren't they making it exponentially harder for us to become Avdei HaShem= Slaves of G-d?
Search for more information about the Red Heifer and Ba'al Peor at 4torah.com.
Mistranslated, misconstrued and maladatpted
by the Bray of Fundie,
Many Meforshim puzzle over the description of the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah as the Khukas HaTorah = the statute of the Torah rather than as the Khukas haTaharah= "the statute of purity" or Khukas HaTumah="the statute of impurity". The Ohr HaKhayim answers that observance of this most inscrutable of Khukim= the irrational Mitzvos that offend reason and lack rationale, is reckoned as observance of the entire Torah. Fulfilling a Mitzvah absent a rational reason testifies to the faith one invests in the Metzaveh=Commander and assent to fulfill all that the Creators desires.
Elaborating on this Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz makes several observations:
1. That when people "do the right thing" because of their internal moral compass they are not manifesting subservience to HaShems authority. The likelihood of their internal moral compass being their motivation for doing good and eschewing evil rather than being motivated by subservience to HaShems authority is much greater when they are observing Mishpatim=the rational Mitzvos. They do those Mitzvos because THEY hold it is the right thing to do. In fact when the Mitzvah in question is a "khok" then, by definition, it is almost impossible that the motivation to perform it is internal. On the contrary, the mind cannot accept it and the emotions often recoil as a result. Performing Khukim brings a new "subservience to HaShems authority" sensibility even to ones performance of Mishpatim.
2. Human nature is very resistant to this type of subservience or to anything that will keep us chained or bound. Human beings affirm their own autonomy and it's trappings of freedom of conscience and of movement whenever possible and recoil from any authority even, or especially, a Divine one, that would demand total surrender of personal autonomy. This authoritarian compulsion is another word for slavery and humans desire freedom and total autonomy.
Among his many proofs is the case of Shimee ben Geirah whom Shlomo HaMelekh "tricked" into incurring the death penalty (to fulfill his fathers deathbed vendetta) by limiting his movement to the Jerusalem City limits.
3. Ba'al Pe'or was the idolatry that the daughters of Moav seduced the Bnei Yisrael into worshipping as a precondition for fornication. Rav Chaim opines that the bizarre cult of Ba'al Pe'or is predicated on the human desire for autonomy and TOTAL liberation from external authority. It was worshipped by defecation upon the icon itself. It was, says Rav Chaim, the religion of non-religion, the worship of denigrating worship and subservience. The exercise and demonstration of "Nothing being sacred". In essence the creed of Baa'l Peor can be summarized as follows: "So you're my god? So YOU"RE gonna tell ME what to do and not do? I s**t on you!"
But it is not merely some quirky historic relic of a bygone ANE culture. It is, concludes Rav Chaim, the defining Zeitgeist of our own era.
Addendum: Rav Chaim's approach makes me wonder; were all the esteemed authors in the genre of Taamei haMitzvos literature, including works e.g. the Moreh Nevukhim, the Kuzari, the Sefer Hakhinukh, to name a few, guilty of וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר, לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל= "Don't bait another to sin" by providing intellectually and emotionally satisfying reasons "tastes/flavors" for so many of the Mitzvos,-Khukim and Mishpatim alike? Aren't they making it exponentially harder for us to become Avdei HaShem= Slaves of G-d?
Search for more information about the Red Heifer and Ba'al Peor at 4torah.com.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Bilaam: Fun facts to know and tell
Here are two things you might have said on Friday night to regale your guests and impress your wife or live in boyfriend as the case may be.
1 - The star of the sedra, Bilaam, is also the star of the the earliest reference in archaeological sources to an individual named in the Torah. A plaster inscription, found in 1967 on the wall of a temple at Deir Alla in Jordan, makes reference to the night vision of a seer called Bilaam son of Beor. It dates to 840-760 BCE.
(And allow me to bring redemption to the world by noting that I heard this from the lips (or fingers) of Mis-nagid, four years ago, back when he was brave enough to blog.)
2 - Bilaam was NOT (not, not, not, NOT) a prophet -- at least according to two of the top three Rishonim. Here is the Ramban's commentary to Num 22:31. The translation is Chaval's (pg 258):"...and God-Forbid that they should stretch forth a hand against a prophet of God." On the same verse the Ramban says: "From this verse we learn the Balaam was not a prophet because had he been a prophet how could it be that he required "opening of the eyes... and indeed scripture calls him a Bilaam ben Beor, the soothsayer[Kosaim]"
I know this quote from the Ramban will come as a bit of a surprise to members of the reading audience who were brought up to believe that Rashi is the last, final, and only word on any subject, but the issue of Bilaam's prophecy is hotly debated. Arguments against include the one cited above, along with the fact that he was both handicapped and evil. (The Spanish rishonim, almost to a man, believed that both would have disqualified him from prophecy.)
The correct view on the question of Ballam's prophecy, therefore, is this: WE DON'T KNOW. Anyone who takes a more certain stance is ignorant or trying to sell you something
1 - The star of the sedra, Bilaam, is also the star of the the earliest reference in archaeological sources to an individual named in the Torah. A plaster inscription, found in 1967 on the wall of a temple at Deir Alla in Jordan, makes reference to the night vision of a seer called Bilaam son of Beor. It dates to 840-760 BCE.
(And allow me to bring redemption to the world by noting that I heard this from the lips (or fingers) of Mis-nagid, four years ago, back when he was brave enough to blog.)
2 - Bilaam was NOT (not, not, not, NOT) a prophet -- at least according to two of the top three Rishonim. Here is the Ramban's commentary to Num 22:31. The translation is Chaval's (pg 258):"...and God-Forbid that they should stretch forth a hand against a prophet of God." On the same verse the Ramban says: "From this verse we learn the Balaam was not a prophet because had he been a prophet how could it be that he required "opening of the eyes... and indeed scripture calls him a Bilaam ben Beor, the soothsayer[Kosaim]"
I know this quote from the Ramban will come as a bit of a surprise to members of the reading audience who were brought up to believe that Rashi is the last, final, and only word on any subject, but the issue of Bilaam's prophecy is hotly debated. Arguments against include the one cited above, along with the fact that he was both handicapped and evil. (The Spanish rishonim, almost to a man, believed that both would have disqualified him from prophecy.)
The correct view on the question of Ballam's prophecy, therefore, is this: WE DON'T KNOW. Anyone who takes a more certain stance is ignorant or trying to sell you something
Biden Suggests U.S. Not Twisting Israel's Arm
"The United States cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do. Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." - Joe Biden
This can't be right. According to the Torah-true wisdom of the RW Israeli bloggers anything the US says Israel must do. This is why they lie awake at night, shaking with fear over the unsubstantiated rumors that president Obama might soon make some pronouncement or another about Jerusalem.
This can't be right. According to the Torah-true wisdom of the RW Israeli bloggers anything the US says Israel must do. This is why they lie awake at night, shaking with fear over the unsubstantiated rumors that president Obama might soon make some pronouncement or another about Jerusalem.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Bad Medicine
Now it is a well-known principle that all people bitten by poisonous creatures become dangerously ill when they see them... as it is written in medical books...[.] Doctors have already mentioned the empirical fact amongst the wonders of reproductions that if the urine of a person bitten by a mad dog is put in a glass receptacle... there will appear in that urine the likeness of the young of small dogs. -- Ramban on Num 21:9 (Chavel's translation)
My purpose here is not to mock the Ramban who was a man of his own time and can't be faulted for reflexively relying on unexamined, received wisdom. Instead, I note simply that he was pleased to cite "medical books" and "doctors" as his authorities; thus, he isn't claiming to have acquired medical knowledge via the study of Torah, but through consultations with the (mistaken) experts of his own time and place.
As an aside, I'm still waiting for someone to provide the famous Chazon Ish sketch.
My purpose here is not to mock the Ramban who was a man of his own time and can't be faulted for reflexively relying on unexamined, received wisdom. Instead, I note simply that he was pleased to cite "medical books" and "doctors" as his authorities; thus, he isn't claiming to have acquired medical knowledge via the study of Torah, but through consultations with the (mistaken) experts of his own time and place.
As an aside, I'm still waiting for someone to provide the famous Chazon Ish sketch.
Falliable Rashi (Or a long and perhaps boring Torah argument with some kefira-lite tacked on at the end)
The story of Arad's attack on Klal Yisroel is told twice in the Torah*. The first time (Num 21:1) the Hebrew looks like this:
וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע הַכְּנַעֲנִ֤י מֶֽלֶךְ־עֲרָד֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַנֶּ֔גֶב כִּ֚י בָּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָאֲתָרִ֑ים וַיִּלָּ֙חֶם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּ֥שְׁבְּ ׀ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ שֶֽׁבִי׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king (of) Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming on the Atarim road (and) he went to war with the Israelites and took some captives.)
The second time (Num 33:40) it looks like this:
וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲרָ֔ד וְהֽוּא־יֹשֵׁ֥ב בַּנֶּ֖גֶב בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן בְּבֹ֖א בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev of Canaan, heard about the coming Israelites.)
At the first mention, Rashi repeats the famous drash from BT Rosh Hashana: What report did [the king] hear? He heard that Araron had died and the Clouds of Glory had departed, and he reasoned that permission has been granted to attack Israel. And the proof text: (the preceding verse Num 20:29) The entire assembly saw that Aaron had died.
As R. Abahu explains (there), the drash is based on a pun. The word for "they saw" (Va'yir'u) can be vowelized as "they appeared" (Va'yay'ro'u) and the word for "that" (kee) also means "because", thus: The entire assembly appeared because Aaron had died.... and the king heard, etc.
The question that should be on everyone's lips, is this: Why is Rashi citing the drash? According to his own mission statement, Rashi doesn't cite random or amusing midrashim. He's not grandpa at the head of the table sharing interesting vortlach. His purpose is to smooth out the Torah text, and he only mentions midrashim that can be used (and sometimes only after being altered) to solve textual anomalies. Here, our text is flawless. We know what the King heard. He heard that Israel was on the Atarim road.
Tosphos asks this question (BT Rosh Hashana 3a) and concludes that the drash actually belongs to the second mention where the reader is not told precisely what the king heard. (i.e. Num 33:40) Rashi, says Tosphos, was sloppy. (v'rashi lo dak b'peirush chumash)
The Gur Aryeh, of course, offers a spirited defense of Rashi. He says that the fact that Israel was on the Atarim road was not enough to provoke an attack; therefore it had to have been something else. Not that I want to go to hell for arguing with the Gur Aryeh but, with all due respect, if the Torah says specifically and in plain Hebew that he attacked because he heard that Israel was on the Atarim Road, who are we to say, "no, no, that couldn't be why he attacked... Had to have been something else."
I understand that Gur Aryeh believes the word Vayishma "and he heard" always, always indicates that something new and exciting was heard, but this is an interpretation that doesn't seem supported by the plain meaning. We're told what the king heard, and if this seems insufficiently new and exciting, well, perhaps the interpretation of Vayishma is what's incorrect. Anyway, Tosphos didn't seem to understand Vayishma the Gur Aryeh's way.
As for me, I wonder if the true solution isn't something simpler. The first mention says "kee bo yisroael"; the parallel says "b'voh yisroel". The difference between the two phrases is one tiny letter (a yud) and the small drop of ink that would convert a beys into a kaf. Perhaps some copyist's hand slipped during the 2000 years between when this was written and the Talmud? If so, there originally was no ambiguity at all about what the King heard.
(And if you doubt such a thing could happen, well, look at Rashi's comment on Num 20:29 where he says flat out that mistakes were made in the transmission of Targum Onkelos. Only about 1200 years elapsed from Onkelos to Rashi. Is it really our position that copyist errors could sneak into every book (including Rashi's very own commentary) ever written aside from the 24 books that make up the Bible? How realistic is that? I know that theologicaly we say that such mistakes were never made, but there is much evidence to the contrary.)
וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע הַכְּנַעֲנִ֤י מֶֽלֶךְ־עֲרָד֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַנֶּ֔גֶב כִּ֚י בָּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָאֲתָרִ֑ים וַיִּלָּ֙חֶם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּ֥שְׁבְּ ׀ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ שֶֽׁבִי׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king (of) Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming on the Atarim road (and) he went to war with the Israelites and took some captives.)
The second time (Num 33:40) it looks like this:
וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲרָ֔ד וְהֽוּא־יֹשֵׁ֥ב בַּנֶּ֖גֶב בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן בְּבֹ֖א בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev of Canaan, heard about the coming Israelites.)
At the first mention, Rashi repeats the famous drash from BT Rosh Hashana: What report did [the king] hear? He heard that Araron had died and the Clouds of Glory had departed, and he reasoned that permission has been granted to attack Israel. And the proof text: (the preceding verse Num 20:29) The entire assembly saw that Aaron had died.
As R. Abahu explains (there), the drash is based on a pun. The word for "they saw" (Va'yir'u) can be vowelized as "they appeared" (Va'yay'ro'u) and the word for "that" (kee) also means "because", thus: The entire assembly appeared because Aaron had died.... and the king heard, etc.
The question that should be on everyone's lips, is this: Why is Rashi citing the drash? According to his own mission statement, Rashi doesn't cite random or amusing midrashim. He's not grandpa at the head of the table sharing interesting vortlach. His purpose is to smooth out the Torah text, and he only mentions midrashim that can be used (and sometimes only after being altered) to solve textual anomalies. Here, our text is flawless. We know what the King heard. He heard that Israel was on the Atarim road.
Tosphos asks this question (BT Rosh Hashana 3a) and concludes that the drash actually belongs to the second mention where the reader is not told precisely what the king heard. (i.e. Num 33:40) Rashi, says Tosphos, was sloppy. (v'rashi lo dak b'peirush chumash)
The Gur Aryeh, of course, offers a spirited defense of Rashi. He says that the fact that Israel was on the Atarim road was not enough to provoke an attack; therefore it had to have been something else. Not that I want to go to hell for arguing with the Gur Aryeh but, with all due respect, if the Torah says specifically and in plain Hebew that he attacked because he heard that Israel was on the Atarim Road, who are we to say, "no, no, that couldn't be why he attacked... Had to have been something else."
I understand that Gur Aryeh believes the word Vayishma "and he heard" always, always indicates that something new and exciting was heard, but this is an interpretation that doesn't seem supported by the plain meaning. We're told what the king heard, and if this seems insufficiently new and exciting, well, perhaps the interpretation of Vayishma is what's incorrect. Anyway, Tosphos didn't seem to understand Vayishma the Gur Aryeh's way.
As for me, I wonder if the true solution isn't something simpler. The first mention says "kee bo yisroael"; the parallel says "b'voh yisroel". The difference between the two phrases is one tiny letter (a yud) and the small drop of ink that would convert a beys into a kaf. Perhaps some copyist's hand slipped during the 2000 years between when this was written and the Talmud? If so, there originally was no ambiguity at all about what the King heard.
(And if you doubt such a thing could happen, well, look at Rashi's comment on Num 20:29 where he says flat out that mistakes were made in the transmission of Targum Onkelos. Only about 1200 years elapsed from Onkelos to Rashi. Is it really our position that copyist errors could sneak into every book (including Rashi's very own commentary) ever written aside from the 24 books that make up the Bible? How realistic is that? I know that theologicaly we say that such mistakes were never made, but there is much evidence to the contrary.)
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Extreme Hair Covering: Kimchit's reward
Down below, the learned readers of the DovBear community are discussing Hadassah's post about hair-covering. There are over 100 comments, but Kimchit hasn't been mentioned yet. This is something of a surprise, as Kimchit and her extreme-hair covering almost always come up when the subject is wigs and snoods. Who was she? Here's how Ask Moses tells her story: In the Talmud there is a famous story about a certain woman by the name of Kimchit who was careful that “the walls of her house should not see the hairs of her head.” She was rewarded with seven sons who served as High Priests.
This is the popular version of the Kimchit story, though I've heard people say the reward was merely seven sons, and not necessarily seven High Priests. In any event many women, including my own sister-in-law, imitate Kimchit's practice in the hopes of sharing in Kimchit's reward. Unfortunately for the Kimchit copycats, the popular/Ask Moses version is a significant distortion of what the Talmud actually says.
Here's my translation of the passage from Yoma 47a:
Search for more information about Kimchit at 4torah.com.
This is the popular version of the Kimchit story, though I've heard people say the reward was merely seven sons, and not necessarily seven High Priests. In any event many women, including my own sister-in-law, imitate Kimchit's practice in the hopes of sharing in Kimchit's reward. Unfortunately for the Kimchit copycats, the popular/Ask Moses version is a significant distortion of what the Talmud actually says.
Here's my translation of the passage from Yoma 47a:
Tanu Rabanan: Kimchit had seven sons and all of them served as Kohen Godol. The Sages said to her: "What did you do to merit this?" She replied: "The walls of my house never saw the hairs on my head" Replied the Sages: "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward."See the difference? In the popular/Ask Moses version there's no doubt that Kimchit's sons are a reward for extreme hair covering. A clear cause and effect is implied. In the Talmud itself, however, the idea that extreme hair covering yields a reward is Kimchit's own theory, and the Sages debunk it.
Search for more information about Kimchit at 4torah.com.
Hair Covering Reflections
A guest post by Hadassah Sabo Milner
When I was first married, years ago, I didn’t want to cover my hair, I just did it because it was asked of me. Almost every time I covered it I felt like I was putting shackles on. I never researched it, never wanted to understand the reasons why. I just went along with the flow – shalom bayit, y’know? I know there are a lot of women out there who feel the same way, and yet they plod along because it is expected of them.
At the time that I uncovered my hair, about 10 days after receiving my Get, I did so after a lot of conscious thought and reflection. It wasn’t a case of “so sad too bad”! Yes, some people around me were shocked and didn’t understand; some people went as far as to assume that it meant I threw away religion in totality. Not so. Those very close to me were not surprised.
The way I looked at it then, was as follows: when a person G-d forbid passes away we rip our clothes, we sit shiva and observe a period of mourning, and we take physical things upon ourselves for the next year to remind us of our loss – no celebrations, no music, men don’t shave etc.
My Get happened mere weeks after we separated. I was in so much deep pain and suffering and at that time, I needed, for myself, to physically show signs of my grief (other than crying all day long wherever I was – that gets old quickly), to work through the grief and the pain and the anguish and all of that. It was never about “not married any more so who needs to cover their hair, I am doing what I want”. I needed to do it to help heal my spirit. I needed to show myself and the world that I was not the same person I was when I was married.
By the time last year’s barmitzvah preparations were in full swing and the barmitzvah boy asked that I wear a sheitel and not a hat to the festivities, I had to do some tremendous soul searching. Of course the fact that he reminded me that I had told him this was HIS day, and was about HIM and no one else – that put more pressure. (I hate when they actually listen to what I say!) He said he would be “ok” if I wore a hat, but would prefer me to wear a sheitel. It’s what all his friends’ mothers do.
Standing there, on the day of the barmitzvah, watching my son lain his parshah, my heart swelling with enormous pride and love and gratitude to G-d, I knew I had come full circle. I knew my mourning was very much over. I let go of the past, of the pain, of the anger and bitterness. That day marked my son’s barmitzvah but also in some ways my rebirth.
Since that day I have been lucky in finding my soul mate, and in February we celebrated our wedding, and the merging of two lively households. I wore a sheitel to my wedding. I cover my hair now when I leave the house. I am a married lady, and it is what’s right for me.
Many religious men take it for granted that their wives will cover their hair, but they have no idea what a difficult mitzvah this is to keep. I struggled for so long with it, and it was only in the absence of keeping this mitzvah that I learned to appreciate the finer points of it. I wish that when I had first got married that there were classes to explain the whys and wherefores of hair covering, to help us come to terms with it. As girls and teenagers, we obsess about our hair, and then all of a sudden we are expected to cover it. It’s a lot to have to deal with.
I now cover my hair on my terms, because it is what I feel is right for where I am in life. No one is forcing me to do it. My husband would never demand it of me. If you want to look down on me because my hair was once uncovered, that’s your choice. If you think my kashrut is suspect because my ponytail sticks out of my baseball cap – that’s your problem. If you want to judge someone based solely on whether the wife wears a sheitel or a snood or a beret, or only covers outside the house or not at all– you are a small minded individual.
Hair covering is a mitzvah that’s extremely visible – maybe a lady doesn’t cover her hair but keeps everything else 100% - how is one to know? Until such a time as a person keeps all mitzvoth perfectly themselves, they have no right to judge any women on how they keep this mitzvah.
I am currently researching all aspects of hair covering for an upcoming publication, and it has been very eye opening. I would be very interested on hearing views from people of all walks of life.
When I was first married, years ago, I didn’t want to cover my hair, I just did it because it was asked of me. Almost every time I covered it I felt like I was putting shackles on. I never researched it, never wanted to understand the reasons why. I just went along with the flow – shalom bayit, y’know? I know there are a lot of women out there who feel the same way, and yet they plod along because it is expected of them.
At the time that I uncovered my hair, about 10 days after receiving my Get, I did so after a lot of conscious thought and reflection. It wasn’t a case of “so sad too bad”! Yes, some people around me were shocked and didn’t understand; some people went as far as to assume that it meant I threw away religion in totality. Not so. Those very close to me were not surprised.
The way I looked at it then, was as follows: when a person G-d forbid passes away we rip our clothes, we sit shiva and observe a period of mourning, and we take physical things upon ourselves for the next year to remind us of our loss – no celebrations, no music, men don’t shave etc.
My Get happened mere weeks after we separated. I was in so much deep pain and suffering and at that time, I needed, for myself, to physically show signs of my grief (other than crying all day long wherever I was – that gets old quickly), to work through the grief and the pain and the anguish and all of that. It was never about “not married any more so who needs to cover their hair, I am doing what I want”. I needed to do it to help heal my spirit. I needed to show myself and the world that I was not the same person I was when I was married.
By the time last year’s barmitzvah preparations were in full swing and the barmitzvah boy asked that I wear a sheitel and not a hat to the festivities, I had to do some tremendous soul searching. Of course the fact that he reminded me that I had told him this was HIS day, and was about HIM and no one else – that put more pressure. (I hate when they actually listen to what I say!) He said he would be “ok” if I wore a hat, but would prefer me to wear a sheitel. It’s what all his friends’ mothers do.
Standing there, on the day of the barmitzvah, watching my son lain his parshah, my heart swelling with enormous pride and love and gratitude to G-d, I knew I had come full circle. I knew my mourning was very much over. I let go of the past, of the pain, of the anger and bitterness. That day marked my son’s barmitzvah but also in some ways my rebirth.
Since that day I have been lucky in finding my soul mate, and in February we celebrated our wedding, and the merging of two lively households. I wore a sheitel to my wedding. I cover my hair now when I leave the house. I am a married lady, and it is what’s right for me.
Many religious men take it for granted that their wives will cover their hair, but they have no idea what a difficult mitzvah this is to keep. I struggled for so long with it, and it was only in the absence of keeping this mitzvah that I learned to appreciate the finer points of it. I wish that when I had first got married that there were classes to explain the whys and wherefores of hair covering, to help us come to terms with it. As girls and teenagers, we obsess about our hair, and then all of a sudden we are expected to cover it. It’s a lot to have to deal with.
I now cover my hair on my terms, because it is what I feel is right for where I am in life. No one is forcing me to do it. My husband would never demand it of me. If you want to look down on me because my hair was once uncovered, that’s your choice. If you think my kashrut is suspect because my ponytail sticks out of my baseball cap – that’s your problem. If you want to judge someone based solely on whether the wife wears a sheitel or a snood or a beret, or only covers outside the house or not at all– you are a small minded individual.
Hair covering is a mitzvah that’s extremely visible – maybe a lady doesn’t cover her hair but keeps everything else 100% - how is one to know? Until such a time as a person keeps all mitzvoth perfectly themselves, they have no right to judge any women on how they keep this mitzvah.
I am currently researching all aspects of hair covering for an upcoming publication, and it has been very eye opening. I would be very interested on hearing views from people of all walks of life.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Anonymous vs. Onymous Blogging
A guest post by E. Fink:
Social Networking has been around for a long time. The term is nearly two centuries old and the concept perhaps 30 times that.
With the internet explosion around the new millennium social networking became all the rage on the world wide web. MySpace and others blazed the trail. Now, blogging, Facebook and Twitter are an integral part of our social landscape.
Naturally, I was drawn to these new age ways of using technology to create social networks. I've been on Facebook since its inception five years ago and joined Twitter a while ago and have only recently begun to blog.
Over the last few weeks some incredible things have happened that are direct results of social networking online.
A couple of weeks ago a lovely woman came to our Shul on the Beach for Shabbos morning services. At the Kiddush (where incredibly, we do not have Kugel) she approached me and introduced herself as "Rena, I follow you on Twitter". Immediately I realized it was @Tinsbar from Baltimore. Rena was in LA for a few days and decided to come check out our Shul. Rena enjoyed her time spent at PJC and we enjoyed her company. In fact one community member even got some footwear recommendations from Rena!
When I related this story to a Shul Board Member, he said this is the new wave of Shuls. We have moved from being just a "Brick and Morter" Shul to a "Click and Mortar" Shul.
About a month ago I posted the story of a penniless Jewish artist on the beach who was homeless. He needed some money and I was not sure if he was a good candidate for Tzedaka and I posted my moral dilemma on DovBear.
As reported last week, an anonymous donor (living miles away from Los Angeles) who read the blog post here on DovBear, literally saved this man from a dire situation.
On Twitter I follow a wonderful couple from Connecticut. She is a blogging convert and is now in the process of a more stringent conversion that would be universally accepted. He is a fellow blogger as well who blogs about his relationship with his Judaism.
He recently discovered the wonderful Jewish town of Waterbury CT. With a Yeshiva, Day School, Shul, Mikva, Kosher restaurant and very affordable housing, Waterbury is quickly picking up young couples looking to settle (slightly) out of town. I read all about that on his "onymous" (it's a new word that means 'the opposite of anonymous') blog.
My sister and brother in law live in Waterbury, I told him to call my brother in law and check out Waterbury. They set a date and spent a wonderful afternoon together.
In short all of this great stuff occurred as a direct result of blogging, Twitter and social-networking 2009 style. These events also occurred in many ways as a result of "onymous" blogging. The charity case required someone be known (in this case, me). There is no way Rena would have found me if I blogged and Twittered anonymously. And if I was an anonymous blogger I never would have connected my sister with two fellow Jews looking for friends and connections.
These are the benefits of "onymous" blogging.
On the other hand (term of art - remember that discussion?), anonymous blogging and Twittering is also great. In particular I point to DovBear's blog as a bastion of anonymity and great discussion that would admittedly never happen if we all had faces, names and families. The unfortunate realities of the Frum world as they are, almost force us cower in fear when we disagree with authority or tradition and we tend to hide behind familiar rituals, thus avoiding conflict and we are safe behind the veil of secrecy that is anonymous blogging.
Anonymity gives the silent, a voice. It gives us all a chance to be heard.
In truth, we have other things to worry about as well. As Tikkun Olam pointed out, we have Frum leaders blanketing all bloggers as a negative force, when we know that is ridiculous. There are some negative forces and many positive forces in the J-Blogosphere.
Worse is the fear we all feel of expressing our opinions. My opinion on this is transparent as I blog "onymously". Speak your mind, challenge what you don't understand but never lose the art of respectful questioning. I am (usually) not afraid to speak my mind and challenge what I don't understand and thus I don't need to be anonymous. Plus, I support many of the traditional ideals that "they" espouse. But, the crux of the issue remains the environment which we have created and now support that does not allow for us to challenge.
I say created, and that is self evident. I say support because we "give in" to the cyber bullies that force us to remain anonymous. How much greater impact would have as a group if those whom we challenge knew that we were real people? They should know that we have Yeshiva educations, wonderful families and jobs and we are frustrated with the status quo. But to "them" we are words on a computer screen, not people.
Words are cheap. Words have no soul when they are anonymous. If we want to be heard we need to be people. People have souls and people need to be dealt with. It is easy to ignore anonymous bloggers. People with souls demand attention and can affect change.
Should we strive to create a Frum culture that allows for challenging and questioning?
Are we helping the situation by blogging anonymously?
Do we lose a lot by blogging anonymously?
Do we stand to lose more by "onymous" blogging?
Search for more information about [onymous blogging] at 4torah.com.
Social Networking has been around for a long time. The term is nearly two centuries old and the concept perhaps 30 times that.
With the internet explosion around the new millennium social networking became all the rage on the world wide web. MySpace and others blazed the trail. Now, blogging, Facebook and Twitter are an integral part of our social landscape.
Naturally, I was drawn to these new age ways of using technology to create social networks. I've been on Facebook since its inception five years ago and joined Twitter a while ago and have only recently begun to blog.
Over the last few weeks some incredible things have happened that are direct results of social networking online.
A couple of weeks ago a lovely woman came to our Shul on the Beach for Shabbos morning services. At the Kiddush (where incredibly, we do not have Kugel) she approached me and introduced herself as "Rena, I follow you on Twitter". Immediately I realized it was @Tinsbar from Baltimore. Rena was in LA for a few days and decided to come check out our Shul. Rena enjoyed her time spent at PJC and we enjoyed her company. In fact one community member even got some footwear recommendations from Rena!
When I related this story to a Shul Board Member, he said this is the new wave of Shuls. We have moved from being just a "Brick and Morter" Shul to a "Click and Mortar" Shul.
About a month ago I posted the story of a penniless Jewish artist on the beach who was homeless. He needed some money and I was not sure if he was a good candidate for Tzedaka and I posted my moral dilemma on DovBear.
As reported last week, an anonymous donor (living miles away from Los Angeles) who read the blog post here on DovBear, literally saved this man from a dire situation.
On Twitter I follow a wonderful couple from Connecticut. She is a blogging convert and is now in the process of a more stringent conversion that would be universally accepted. He is a fellow blogger as well who blogs about his relationship with his Judaism.
He recently discovered the wonderful Jewish town of Waterbury CT. With a Yeshiva, Day School, Shul, Mikva, Kosher restaurant and very affordable housing, Waterbury is quickly picking up young couples looking to settle (slightly) out of town. I read all about that on his "onymous" (it's a new word that means 'the opposite of anonymous') blog.
My sister and brother in law live in Waterbury, I told him to call my brother in law and check out Waterbury. They set a date and spent a wonderful afternoon together.
In short all of this great stuff occurred as a direct result of blogging, Twitter and social-networking 2009 style. These events also occurred in many ways as a result of "onymous" blogging. The charity case required someone be known (in this case, me). There is no way Rena would have found me if I blogged and Twittered anonymously. And if I was an anonymous blogger I never would have connected my sister with two fellow Jews looking for friends and connections.
These are the benefits of "onymous" blogging.
On the other hand (term of art - remember that discussion?), anonymous blogging and Twittering is also great. In particular I point to DovBear's blog as a bastion of anonymity and great discussion that would admittedly never happen if we all had faces, names and families. The unfortunate realities of the Frum world as they are, almost force us cower in fear when we disagree with authority or tradition and we tend to hide behind familiar rituals, thus avoiding conflict and we are safe behind the veil of secrecy that is anonymous blogging.
Anonymity gives the silent, a voice. It gives us all a chance to be heard.
In truth, we have other things to worry about as well. As Tikkun Olam pointed out, we have Frum leaders blanketing all bloggers as a negative force, when we know that is ridiculous. There are some negative forces and many positive forces in the J-Blogosphere.
Worse is the fear we all feel of expressing our opinions. My opinion on this is transparent as I blog "onymously". Speak your mind, challenge what you don't understand but never lose the art of respectful questioning. I am (usually) not afraid to speak my mind and challenge what I don't understand and thus I don't need to be anonymous. Plus, I support many of the traditional ideals that "they" espouse. But, the crux of the issue remains the environment which we have created and now support that does not allow for us to challenge.
I say created, and that is self evident. I say support because we "give in" to the cyber bullies that force us to remain anonymous. How much greater impact would have as a group if those whom we challenge knew that we were real people? They should know that we have Yeshiva educations, wonderful families and jobs and we are frustrated with the status quo. But to "them" we are words on a computer screen, not people.
Words are cheap. Words have no soul when they are anonymous. If we want to be heard we need to be people. People have souls and people need to be dealt with. It is easy to ignore anonymous bloggers. People with souls demand attention and can affect change.
Should we strive to create a Frum culture that allows for challenging and questioning?
Are we helping the situation by blogging anonymously?
Do we lose a lot by blogging anonymously?
Do we stand to lose more by "onymous" blogging?
Search for more information about [onymous blogging] at 4torah.com.
No more GOP Jews?
The United States Senate is without a Jewish Republican for the first time in over 50 years.
>>More
>>More
Rashi's Conception of Hashem
A guest post by JS:
As DB is fond of pointing out, "Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim." Rashi carefully selects each midrash, gemara, and rabbinical statement in order to clarify a scriptural difficulty in a manner he deems satisfactory. If Rashi cites a midrash to resolve a grammatical error, the midrash not only irons out the difficult language to Rashi's liking, it also brings forth a concept that Rashi liked or at least didn't find untenable.
For example, in Shmot 2:5, Rashi is bothered by the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" (and she [Pharoah's daughter] sent forth אֲמָתָהּ and took it [the basket containing Moshe]). Rashi first explains that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "her maidservant." However, he goes on to explain (and of course this is the only explanation anyone remembers) that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "arm" and is vowelized the way it is to indicate that her arm grew long enough to reach the basket. Therefore, in my opinion, Rashi cites the gemara to deal not only with the difficult language in the verse (why is אֲמָתָהּ vowelized the way it is) but also because he either liked the concept of a miraculously growing arm to reach the miracle-producing Moshe, or he didn't have a problem with that idea.
In this parsha, there are a couple of interesting Rashis from which emerge a picture of how Rashi conceived of Hashem (or at least how he didn't think it was sacrilegious to view Hashem). Please note what I just wrote in parentheses as, for the sake of clarity, I won't be repeating this again.
In BaMidbar 20:1 on the words "And Miriam died there," Rashi states that Miriam died just like her two siblings by a kiss from God's mouth. However, the verse doesn't say so because it is not respectful to speak of God in this way (as One who kisses women). Thus, Rashi believes that God, who wrote the Torah, didn't say the manner in which Miriam died because God was concerned His honor would be diminished if He said He kissed Miriam with His mouth.
In 20:12 on the words "Therefore, you shall not bring," Rashi states that "therefore" is a form of an oath and that God hastened to swear an oath that Moshe and Aharon would not take the nation into Israel because if He hadn't, Moshe and Aharon could have "beaten Him to the punch" and interceded with prayer, which He would have had to answer. Thus, Rashi believes that God can be forced into action by human beings and has to act quicker than they to avoid being coerced.
In 21:1 on the words "Who lived in the South," Rashi states that it wasn't actually the Canaanites who attacked Israel, rather it was the Amalekites disguised as Canaanites (as it is the Amalekites who lived in the South, not the Canaanites). Why did the Amalekites do this? Because if the Jews prayed "Save us from the Canaanites" their prayers would be worthless. But, the Jews were clever and only prayed generally saying "Save us" and therefore their prayers worked. Thus, Rashi believes that God is so demanding and specific in his answering of prayers that He would actually refuse to answer specific (but incorrect) prayers and thus, in order to have God respond to our prayers it's best to be general and non-specific.
Search for more information about Rashi at 4torah.com.
As DB is fond of pointing out, "Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim." Rashi carefully selects each midrash, gemara, and rabbinical statement in order to clarify a scriptural difficulty in a manner he deems satisfactory. If Rashi cites a midrash to resolve a grammatical error, the midrash not only irons out the difficult language to Rashi's liking, it also brings forth a concept that Rashi liked or at least didn't find untenable.
For example, in Shmot 2:5, Rashi is bothered by the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" (and she [Pharoah's daughter] sent forth אֲמָתָהּ and took it [the basket containing Moshe]). Rashi first explains that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "her maidservant." However, he goes on to explain (and of course this is the only explanation anyone remembers) that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "arm" and is vowelized the way it is to indicate that her arm grew long enough to reach the basket. Therefore, in my opinion, Rashi cites the gemara to deal not only with the difficult language in the verse (why is אֲמָתָהּ vowelized the way it is) but also because he either liked the concept of a miraculously growing arm to reach the miracle-producing Moshe, or he didn't have a problem with that idea.
In this parsha, there are a couple of interesting Rashis from which emerge a picture of how Rashi conceived of Hashem (or at least how he didn't think it was sacrilegious to view Hashem). Please note what I just wrote in parentheses as, for the sake of clarity, I won't be repeating this again.
In BaMidbar 20:1 on the words "And Miriam died there," Rashi states that Miriam died just like her two siblings by a kiss from God's mouth. However, the verse doesn't say so because it is not respectful to speak of God in this way (as One who kisses women). Thus, Rashi believes that God, who wrote the Torah, didn't say the manner in which Miriam died because God was concerned His honor would be diminished if He said He kissed Miriam with His mouth.
In 20:12 on the words "Therefore, you shall not bring," Rashi states that "therefore" is a form of an oath and that God hastened to swear an oath that Moshe and Aharon would not take the nation into Israel because if He hadn't, Moshe and Aharon could have "beaten Him to the punch" and interceded with prayer, which He would have had to answer. Thus, Rashi believes that God can be forced into action by human beings and has to act quicker than they to avoid being coerced.
In 21:1 on the words "Who lived in the South," Rashi states that it wasn't actually the Canaanites who attacked Israel, rather it was the Amalekites disguised as Canaanites (as it is the Amalekites who lived in the South, not the Canaanites). Why did the Amalekites do this? Because if the Jews prayed "Save us from the Canaanites" their prayers would be worthless. But, the Jews were clever and only prayed generally saying "Save us" and therefore their prayers worked. Thus, Rashi believes that God is so demanding and specific in his answering of prayers that He would actually refuse to answer specific (but incorrect) prayers and thus, in order to have God respond to our prayers it's best to be general and non-specific.
Search for more information about Rashi at 4torah.com.
Location, Location Location
By the Bray of Fundie
All of Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Haqodesh= Holy Land/ground. But some spots have a more elevated Qedusha than the balance of the Holy Land e.g. the City of Jerusalem and the Har HaBayis. The elevated Qedusha of these spots are relatively easy to "understand" as being matters of divine election. כִּי אִם-אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ="but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in. " But to claim that a particular locations elevated Qedusha might result from the refined and sanctified behavior of it's residents, that elevated Qedusha of real estate derives from an exercise of human free will, is something that never occurred to me. Until now.
Why were the ancient Levi-towns designated as refuge cities for man-slaughterers? The Sefer HaKhinukh in Mitzva 408 provides two consciousness expanding answers, but for now I'd like to discuss only the first.
"And because of their (the Levites) lofty level, the refinement of their works, and the comeliness of their value /stature (??? חין ערכם ) their land was chosen to provide sanctuary for all those who kill souls accidentally more so than the lands of any of the other tribes. Perhaps the soil that has been sanctified with their sanctity will provide atonement for them (the man-slaughterers) "
What is striking is that the Khinukh eschews the more rational pedagogical approach; that hanging out with the Levi'im the man-slaughterers will have good role models to emulate, in favor of an obscurantist, metaphysical approach i.e. that the Levi'im infuse the soil of their towns with holiness and this holiness may edify the murderers and heal their soul-sickness.
Some points to ponder:
A) Does this dynamic work anywhere or only in Eretz Yisrael/Ever HaYarden that has intrinsic sanctity to start with?
B) If indeed this works anywhere perhaps it's time for our Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov to manifest a little communal faith and confidence and end their snobbish, cliquish. exclusionary admission policies that reject students from "less than perfect homes". After all if we're so sure that Yeshiva-leit and Kollel-leit are the latter day Levi'im (see the last passage of the Rambam in the laws of Shmita and Yovel) then the very ground of our Schools ought to be sanctified to the point that they can soul-cure all who take up residence there. And besides, none of the rejected students /students parents ridiculously exaggerated misdemeanors rise to the level of manslaughter. In any event the Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov IN Eretz Yisrael ought to revamp their admissions policies.
Search for more information about refuge cities at 4torah.com.
All of Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Haqodesh= Holy Land/ground. But some spots have a more elevated Qedusha than the balance of the Holy Land e.g. the City of Jerusalem and the Har HaBayis. The elevated Qedusha of these spots are relatively easy to "understand" as being matters of divine election. כִּי אִם-אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ="but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in. " But to claim that a particular locations elevated Qedusha might result from the refined and sanctified behavior of it's residents, that elevated Qedusha of real estate derives from an exercise of human free will, is something that never occurred to me. Until now.
Why were the ancient Levi-towns designated as refuge cities for man-slaughterers? The Sefer HaKhinukh in Mitzva 408 provides two consciousness expanding answers, but for now I'd like to discuss only the first.
"And because of their (the Levites) lofty level, the refinement of their works, and the comeliness of their value /stature (??? חין ערכם ) their land was chosen to provide sanctuary for all those who kill souls accidentally more so than the lands of any of the other tribes. Perhaps the soil that has been sanctified with their sanctity will provide atonement for them (the man-slaughterers) "
What is striking is that the Khinukh eschews the more rational pedagogical approach; that hanging out with the Levi'im the man-slaughterers will have good role models to emulate, in favor of an obscurantist, metaphysical approach i.e. that the Levi'im infuse the soil of their towns with holiness and this holiness may edify the murderers and heal their soul-sickness.
Some points to ponder:
A) Does this dynamic work anywhere or only in Eretz Yisrael/Ever HaYarden that has intrinsic sanctity to start with?
B) If indeed this works anywhere perhaps it's time for our Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov to manifest a little communal faith and confidence and end their snobbish, cliquish. exclusionary admission policies that reject students from "less than perfect homes". After all if we're so sure that Yeshiva-leit and Kollel-leit are the latter day Levi'im (see the last passage of the Rambam in the laws of Shmita and Yovel) then the very ground of our Schools ought to be sanctified to the point that they can soul-cure all who take up residence there. And besides, none of the rejected students /students parents ridiculously exaggerated misdemeanors rise to the level of manslaughter. In any event the Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov IN Eretz Yisrael ought to revamp their admissions policies.
Search for more information about refuge cities at 4torah.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)