Please go to the far-right sidebar and click to "follow" this blog.
Thank you, and may we be forever zoche to do favors for each other.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Celebrating Zionism
A (belated) guest post by DANIEL
Today is Israel's birthday. In recent months I have become notorious among my friends as an often-harsh critic of Israel. But, even for those who bitch about Israel 364 days a year, today is a day to celebrate. And indeed, there is a lot to celebrate. The establishment of Israel 61 years ago was the culmination of the Zionist dream. From a cultural perspective, Zionism is perhaps the single most important movement in Judaism's long history. Zionism allowed Jews to re-create a national culture in their ancestral homeland. Zionism revived the once-dead Hebrew language. Zionism promoted for the first time in two millenia the establishment of Jewish institutions such as universities, hospitals, and theatres. Zionism fostered outstanding contributions to mankind in science and in the arts. Zionism gave downtrodden and oppressed Jews around the world a fresh reason to hold their heads high. Zionism brought Jews out of the ghettos and into all facets of life. Zionism provided a central address for Jews of different backgrounds and traditions, separated for centuries, to embrace a common ground. Zionism gave Jews, the world's perpetual refugees, a place to call home.
Click here to read the rest of Celbrating Zionism
Today is about celebrating these accomplishments, but also about reflecting on them. In Israel, independence day is linked to remembrance day for fallen soldiers for precisely this reason. The accomplishments I listed are all of a cultural nature - from a cultural perspective, Zionism was an unparalleled and indeed a vital success for the Jewish People. Yet the movement is fraught with internal divisions, inherent contradictions, and even today lacks clear definition. What is Zionism? Today the term is used to denote political support for the State of Israel, but historically it referred to a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine. The World Zionist Organization was formed in 1897, but as late as 1919 its general secretary emphatically denied that the creation of an independent Jewish state was or ever had been a part of the Zionist programme.[1]
Clearly then, there is more to Zionism than the idea of a Jewish State. Most of the great Jewish minds of the last century - including Einstein, Freud, Kafka, Arendt, Chomsky, Buber, Ben Yehuda, and Ahad Ha'am - saw in Zionism the potential for a Jewish social and cultural revival, but opposed Herzl's idea of an ethnically Jewish state.[2] In fact, Herzl is in many ways the antithesis of everything positive that Zionism has achieved. Herzl saw Jewish culture as inferior. He initially favoured assimilation over nationalism, and promoted mass conversion to Christianity as the answer to the "Jewish question."[3] Only after the Dreyfus Affair did Herzl realize that assimilation could not succeed and he began to advocate for a Jewish state. To Herzl, Judaism was an ethnicity and nothing more. The state he envisioned would have nothing to do with Jewish culture or religion - it would be a colonial German-speaking state in Argentina or Uganda modelled after secular European culture.[4] He even saw anti-Semites as his allies in driving the Jews out of Europe.[5] Herzl's Zionism was not in any way a product of Judaism (it was the furthest thing from it), but of European ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalism is about building military strength, seizing land, and preserving the dominance of one ethnic group. Yet this dangerous and discredited ideology has shaped Zionism since its inception.
I am proud of Israel, not for the strength of its army or the resilience of its economy, but for the cultural renewal it brought to the Jewish People. Zionism might be one of the most important movements in the history of Judaism, but the key is to never forget that as a Jewish movement Zionism should be subservient to Judaism, not the other way around. We must not redefine our 4000-year-old religious and cultural identity to conform with a 110-year-old political ideology. Early Zionists tried to blur the lines, couching their secular aims in the language of divine redemption and commodifying religious artifacts like the Western Wall (which Yeshayahu Leibowitz referred to as the discotel)[6]. The tragedy is that Jews have begun to define themselves according to Zionism, rather than defining Zionism in terms of their Judaism. Striving for exclusive political sovereignty over the land of Israel is not a part of Judaism - we are not crusaders, duty-bound to liberate our holy sites from the hands of infidels. For most of our history, we lived in exile, and even when we were in our homeland we were usually ruled by foreigners - Romans, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc - the Davidic dynasty reigned for only a few generations, and hardly defines who we are as a people. Clearly, exclusive Jewish political sovereignty is not a requirement for our cultural and spiritual fulfillment.
Today, on the day of celebration of Zionism's fruition, we need to contemplate what Zionism means to us. Zionism as ethnonationalism, as systemic inequality against Israel's Arabs and military oppression of the Palestinian people, is something that I will continue to fight at every turn. Zionism as Jewish cultural rebirth is what I choose to celebrate. We must be careful not to conflate the two, as many have done and many continue to do. I take offense when I see symbols of my religion confused for symbols of occupation. We should not accept the status quo. We need to question the defunct ethnonationalist premises of Herzl's Zionism. I adhere instead to the Zionism of Buber and Ginsberg. Why should the ideals that our ancestors fought and died for - separation of Church and State, universal emancipation, the abolition of ethnic quotas - apply in all other states where we live but not in our own.
Could Zionism have achieved its cultural victories without its ethnonationalist element? Probably - many of Israel's great cultural institutions, like Hebrew University, Hadassa Hospital, the Technion, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, numerous theatre and cinema companies, the modern Hebrew language, and the city of Tel Aviv, were established long before Israel's political independence. Until the outbreak of violence in the 1920s when ethnonationalism became official Zionist policy, local Arabs could be persuaded to cooperate with Zionist objectives, including the mass immigration of European Jews, and govern Palestine jointly (see for example the Faisal-Weizman Agreement)[7]. If early Zionists had not chosen to pursue ethnonationalism - the establishment of a state exclusively for Jews on shared land - then perhaps cultural renewal could have been attained without touching off a war of civilizations that will last for generations. Without consigning millions of Palestinians to live as refugees, millions of Jewish youths to military service, tens of thousands on both sides to death, and trillions of dollars to warfare.
But we should focus on the future, not the past. The Jewish State is here to stay. It has done a lot of good and it has done a lot of bad, and one does not cancel out the other. The positive things that Zionism has brought to Judaism and the world exist independently of the bad things it has brought; we can and should celebrate the good and at the same time address the bad. Currently the two-state solution is the most realistic framework for moving forward. Let's work on continuing to steer Zionism toward the ideals that guided us in the past, the ideals of liberalism and justice. There is no principle more quintessentially Jewish than "love your neighbour as yourself,"[8] and I contend that Israel cannot be a truly Jewish state until it embraces this most basic tenet (not in a hippy let's-hug-our-enemy way, but in a treating-the-other-as-human way) in relation to its Palestinian neighbours, who are currently commemorating their nakba under one of the most oppressive military occupations of the modern era. Though we acknowledge their suffering, let us celebrate the incredible achievements of Zionism even as we recognize the enormity of the work that remains.
Happy Independence Day.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism 1600-1918 (London : Loggmans, Green, 1919) at p. xxiv. I wasn't sure what to make of this when I came across it online, but I checked the primary source and it is legit. Sokolow, who was then general secretary of the WZO (and was later its president) wrote explicitly that Zionism did not call for an independent Jewish state and that this was merely a fabrication propagated by anti-Zionists to discredit the movement.
[2] Cultural Zionism is a movement largely credited to Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg) which called for the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine while respecting the rights of its native inhabitants and opposing a Jewish ethnocracy. For more detailed sources relating to the figures named above, ask me, but for the sake of brevity I will only quote Einstein: “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state... My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power... I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/16/israel.india).
[3] Daniel P. Hadley, Catholicism, France and Zionism: 1895-1904 (http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol4num1/dhadley/) at para. 11, note 12. Herzl went so far as to try to enlist the Pope's help in converting Jews en masse to Christianity. See also: note 5.
[4] Wikipedia it. See also: note 5.
[5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913663330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. The movie referenced can be watched here: http://www.shofar.net/site/emedia.asp?id=962&Prourl=http://oldserver.shofar-tv.com/MEDIA/Languages\english\Herzel-eng.wmv . Warning: the sources it uses are all reliable and academic, but the movie has a very extremist religious agenda. Some pretty shocking stuff, but worth a look.
[6] http://www.hadassah.org/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2001/Feb01/wall.htm
[7] http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5bff833964edb9bf85256ced00673d1f!OpenDocument especially art. iv.
[8] According to tradition, the scholar Hillel referred to that sentence as comprising the entire Torah, and all the rest as merely commentary.
Search for more information about Zionism at 4torah.com.
Today is Israel's birthday. In recent months I have become notorious among my friends as an often-harsh critic of Israel. But, even for those who bitch about Israel 364 days a year, today is a day to celebrate. And indeed, there is a lot to celebrate. The establishment of Israel 61 years ago was the culmination of the Zionist dream. From a cultural perspective, Zionism is perhaps the single most important movement in Judaism's long history. Zionism allowed Jews to re-create a national culture in their ancestral homeland. Zionism revived the once-dead Hebrew language. Zionism promoted for the first time in two millenia the establishment of Jewish institutions such as universities, hospitals, and theatres. Zionism fostered outstanding contributions to mankind in science and in the arts. Zionism gave downtrodden and oppressed Jews around the world a fresh reason to hold their heads high. Zionism brought Jews out of the ghettos and into all facets of life. Zionism provided a central address for Jews of different backgrounds and traditions, separated for centuries, to embrace a common ground. Zionism gave Jews, the world's perpetual refugees, a place to call home.
Click here to read the rest of Celbrating Zionism
Today is about celebrating these accomplishments, but also about reflecting on them. In Israel, independence day is linked to remembrance day for fallen soldiers for precisely this reason. The accomplishments I listed are all of a cultural nature - from a cultural perspective, Zionism was an unparalleled and indeed a vital success for the Jewish People. Yet the movement is fraught with internal divisions, inherent contradictions, and even today lacks clear definition. What is Zionism? Today the term is used to denote political support for the State of Israel, but historically it referred to a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish "homeland" in Palestine. The World Zionist Organization was formed in 1897, but as late as 1919 its general secretary emphatically denied that the creation of an independent Jewish state was or ever had been a part of the Zionist programme.[1]
Clearly then, there is more to Zionism than the idea of a Jewish State. Most of the great Jewish minds of the last century - including Einstein, Freud, Kafka, Arendt, Chomsky, Buber, Ben Yehuda, and Ahad Ha'am - saw in Zionism the potential for a Jewish social and cultural revival, but opposed Herzl's idea of an ethnically Jewish state.[2] In fact, Herzl is in many ways the antithesis of everything positive that Zionism has achieved. Herzl saw Jewish culture as inferior. He initially favoured assimilation over nationalism, and promoted mass conversion to Christianity as the answer to the "Jewish question."[3] Only after the Dreyfus Affair did Herzl realize that assimilation could not succeed and he began to advocate for a Jewish state. To Herzl, Judaism was an ethnicity and nothing more. The state he envisioned would have nothing to do with Jewish culture or religion - it would be a colonial German-speaking state in Argentina or Uganda modelled after secular European culture.[4] He even saw anti-Semites as his allies in driving the Jews out of Europe.[5] Herzl's Zionism was not in any way a product of Judaism (it was the furthest thing from it), but of European ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalism is about building military strength, seizing land, and preserving the dominance of one ethnic group. Yet this dangerous and discredited ideology has shaped Zionism since its inception.
I am proud of Israel, not for the strength of its army or the resilience of its economy, but for the cultural renewal it brought to the Jewish People. Zionism might be one of the most important movements in the history of Judaism, but the key is to never forget that as a Jewish movement Zionism should be subservient to Judaism, not the other way around. We must not redefine our 4000-year-old religious and cultural identity to conform with a 110-year-old political ideology. Early Zionists tried to blur the lines, couching their secular aims in the language of divine redemption and commodifying religious artifacts like the Western Wall (which Yeshayahu Leibowitz referred to as the discotel)[6]. The tragedy is that Jews have begun to define themselves according to Zionism, rather than defining Zionism in terms of their Judaism. Striving for exclusive political sovereignty over the land of Israel is not a part of Judaism - we are not crusaders, duty-bound to liberate our holy sites from the hands of infidels. For most of our history, we lived in exile, and even when we were in our homeland we were usually ruled by foreigners - Romans, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc - the Davidic dynasty reigned for only a few generations, and hardly defines who we are as a people. Clearly, exclusive Jewish political sovereignty is not a requirement for our cultural and spiritual fulfillment.
Today, on the day of celebration of Zionism's fruition, we need to contemplate what Zionism means to us. Zionism as ethnonationalism, as systemic inequality against Israel's Arabs and military oppression of the Palestinian people, is something that I will continue to fight at every turn. Zionism as Jewish cultural rebirth is what I choose to celebrate. We must be careful not to conflate the two, as many have done and many continue to do. I take offense when I see symbols of my religion confused for symbols of occupation. We should not accept the status quo. We need to question the defunct ethnonationalist premises of Herzl's Zionism. I adhere instead to the Zionism of Buber and Ginsberg. Why should the ideals that our ancestors fought and died for - separation of Church and State, universal emancipation, the abolition of ethnic quotas - apply in all other states where we live but not in our own.
Could Zionism have achieved its cultural victories without its ethnonationalist element? Probably - many of Israel's great cultural institutions, like Hebrew University, Hadassa Hospital, the Technion, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, numerous theatre and cinema companies, the modern Hebrew language, and the city of Tel Aviv, were established long before Israel's political independence. Until the outbreak of violence in the 1920s when ethnonationalism became official Zionist policy, local Arabs could be persuaded to cooperate with Zionist objectives, including the mass immigration of European Jews, and govern Palestine jointly (see for example the Faisal-Weizman Agreement)[7]. If early Zionists had not chosen to pursue ethnonationalism - the establishment of a state exclusively for Jews on shared land - then perhaps cultural renewal could have been attained without touching off a war of civilizations that will last for generations. Without consigning millions of Palestinians to live as refugees, millions of Jewish youths to military service, tens of thousands on both sides to death, and trillions of dollars to warfare.
But we should focus on the future, not the past. The Jewish State is here to stay. It has done a lot of good and it has done a lot of bad, and one does not cancel out the other. The positive things that Zionism has brought to Judaism and the world exist independently of the bad things it has brought; we can and should celebrate the good and at the same time address the bad. Currently the two-state solution is the most realistic framework for moving forward. Let's work on continuing to steer Zionism toward the ideals that guided us in the past, the ideals of liberalism and justice. There is no principle more quintessentially Jewish than "love your neighbour as yourself,"[8] and I contend that Israel cannot be a truly Jewish state until it embraces this most basic tenet (not in a hippy let's-hug-our-enemy way, but in a treating-the-other-as-human way) in relation to its Palestinian neighbours, who are currently commemorating their nakba under one of the most oppressive military occupations of the modern era. Though we acknowledge their suffering, let us celebrate the incredible achievements of Zionism even as we recognize the enormity of the work that remains.
Happy Independence Day.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism 1600-1918 (London : Loggmans, Green, 1919) at p. xxiv. I wasn't sure what to make of this when I came across it online, but I checked the primary source and it is legit. Sokolow, who was then general secretary of the WZO (and was later its president) wrote explicitly that Zionism did not call for an independent Jewish state and that this was merely a fabrication propagated by anti-Zionists to discredit the movement.
[2] Cultural Zionism is a movement largely credited to Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg) which called for the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine while respecting the rights of its native inhabitants and opposing a Jewish ethnocracy. For more detailed sources relating to the figures named above, ask me, but for the sake of brevity I will only quote Einstein: “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state... My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power... I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/16/israel.india).
[3] Daniel P. Hadley, Catholicism, France and Zionism: 1895-1904 (http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol4num1/dhadley/) at para. 11, note 12. Herzl went so far as to try to enlist the Pope's help in converting Jews en masse to Christianity. See also: note 5.
[4] Wikipedia it. See also: note 5.
[5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913663330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. The movie referenced can be watched here: http://www.shofar.net/site/emedia.asp?id=962&Prourl=http://oldserver.shofar-tv.com/MEDIA/Languages\english\Herzel-eng.wmv . Warning: the sources it uses are all reliable and academic, but the movie has a very extremist religious agenda. Some pretty shocking stuff, but worth a look.
[6] http://www.hadassah.org/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2001/Feb01/wall.htm
[7] http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5bff833964edb9bf85256ced00673d1f!OpenDocument especially art. iv.
[8] According to tradition, the scholar Hillel referred to that sentence as comprising the entire Torah, and all the rest as merely commentary.
Search for more information about Zionism at 4torah.com.
Hunchback or long eyebrows
This is a very poorly researched post (if you can call it a post at all)
In Lev 21 God lists the various deformities that disqualify a kohen. Among the ailments are the גִבֵּן (geeben) and the דק (dak)
Virtually every major English translation of the Bible takes geeben as hunchback, and indeed this is the modern Israeli word for that affliction. Rashi however reads it as "sourcils in French, [meaning] that his eyebrow (גַּבִּין) hairs are [abnormally] long and droop. — [Bech. 43b]"
(Hard to understand why long eyebrow hairs would render a kohen unfit. Hunchback is a better fit)
With the exception of the Douay-Rheims Bible, all take dak as dwarf. Rashi (and Douay-Rheims) have it as an eye affliction of some kind. Rashi says its a membrane that covers the eyes, ie a cataract.
(תבלל is the next item on the list, and this is also an eye affliction, which most take as cataract. Is it likely cataract would appear twice?)
In both case, the context seems to argue against Rashi, but I'm not enough of a philologist to settle this dispute(in fact, I'm no kind of philologist at all.)
So, readers, its on you.
Related: Leviticus and Disability: My Take on Nick's Crusade
In Lev 21 God lists the various deformities that disqualify a kohen. Among the ailments are the גִבֵּן (geeben) and the דק (dak)
Virtually every major English translation of the Bible takes geeben as hunchback, and indeed this is the modern Israeli word for that affliction. Rashi however reads it as "sourcils in French, [meaning] that his eyebrow (גַּבִּין) hairs are [abnormally] long and droop. — [Bech. 43b]"
(Hard to understand why long eyebrow hairs would render a kohen unfit. Hunchback is a better fit)
With the exception of the Douay-Rheims Bible, all take dak as dwarf. Rashi (and Douay-Rheims) have it as an eye affliction of some kind. Rashi says its a membrane that covers the eyes, ie a cataract.
(תבלל is the next item on the list, and this is also an eye affliction, which most take as cataract. Is it likely cataract would appear twice?)
In both case, the context seems to argue against Rashi, but I'm not enough of a philologist to settle this dispute(in fact, I'm no kind of philologist at all.)
So, readers, its on you.
Related: Leviticus and Disability: My Take on Nick's Crusade
Friday, May 08, 2009
Star Trek!
:: The New York Times published a very favorable review of the new Star Trek flick.
The editors must not realize both Spock and Kirk were first portrayed by Jews [/snark
:: Many eons ago, I saw a Purim shpiel which offered theoretical answers to Star Trek halacha questions. I recall:
Can Data be counted in a minyan (no) Do you need two replicators, one for meat and one for dairy? (yes) A starfleet ship can be as large as a small city. Does it require an eruv? (yes) Do you sit shiva for someone who has been transported? (no, but only because it would impose a burden on the commuity) (Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization). Wikipedia)
You're welcome to work out the underlying reasoning for yourselves.
:: And finally, here's something to argue about tomorrow ben gavra l'gavra: Which fictional race is a more blatant and therefore more offensive, Jewish stereotype: The big-eared, greedy Goblin bankers in Harry Potter, or the big-eared, greedy Ferengi mercenaries in Star Trek?
Search for more information about Star Trek at 4torah.com.
The editors must not realize both Spock and Kirk were first portrayed by Jews [/snark
:: Many eons ago, I saw a Purim shpiel which offered theoretical answers to Star Trek halacha questions. I recall:
You're welcome to work out the underlying reasoning for yourselves.
:: And finally, here's something to argue about tomorrow ben gavra l'gavra: Which fictional race is a more blatant and therefore more offensive, Jewish stereotype: The big-eared, greedy Goblin bankers in Harry Potter, or the big-eared, greedy Ferengi mercenaries in Star Trek?
Search for more information about Star Trek at 4torah.com.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Bad timing award
Talk about bad timing. My FaceBook "friend" David Klinghoffer blogs Why I'm "Christian-Friendly" on the selfsame day Westboro Baptist announces a plan to picket shuls. Seems they've peeved both that we're so gay friendly, and also because we murdered their omnipotent, almost all-powerful Lord. Klinghoffer's money quote
There's more to say about why DK is wrong, but I am past zonked. Perhaps tomorrow.
yes, I'm "Christian-friendly." Why on earth would I not be? We don't live in Europe -- medieval, mid-20th century, or modern -- where religious, ideological, and secular-fed anti-Semitism was and is rife. We live in America, the most philo-Semitic country in history and arguably the most passionately Christian in the world today.Sorry, but the hard-core Catholics in Brazil, Peru, and Africa are far more passionately Christian than sloppy feel-good mega-church Americans (and of course the most passionately religious countries today are Muslim) Besides, American philo-Semitism comes with some awfully big strings attached, and a few intolerable conditions, so who needs it?
There's more to say about why DK is wrong, but I am past zonked. Perhaps tomorrow.
Shul seating
In our shul we usually sit at tables, as in this picture. When we need extra space, the tables are stored in the basement, and we sit in rows, like this.
A few weeks ago, we had a Bar Mitzvah, and many guests were expected. To accomodate them the tables were stored away, aside for one that was moved flush against a side wall, like this. (The green box is the table. The lines represent the rows of chairs)
When I came in that Shabbos morning (a little late) (shut up) one guy had turned his chair sideways and was sitting at the table, with his back toward the room (see here; he is the red circle. The arrow indicates the direction he was facing.)
Now of course this guy is an idiot, but exactly what kind of idiot? I came up with some possibilities:
A few weeks ago, we had a Bar Mitzvah, and many guests were expected. To accomodate them the tables were stored away, aside for one that was moved flush against a side wall, like this. (The green box is the table. The lines represent the rows of chairs)
When I came in that Shabbos morning (a little late) (shut up) one guy had turned his chair sideways and was sitting at the table, with his back toward the room (see here; he is the red circle. The arrow indicates the direction he was facing.)
Now of course this guy is an idiot, but exactly what kind of idiot? I came up with some possibilities:
- Pious moron (Heimish Torah-true Jews must always pray at tables!)
- Insecure moron (Oy, how my children will suffer if word gets out that I once sat in a pew like those modern YI Jews)
- Slothful moron (What? Sitting this way is more comfortable!)
- Uncooperative moron (Just who in the samhell do those gabbaim think they are rearranging the shul like this? Was the Rabbi informed?)
- Clueless moron (I was supposed to sit in the rows like everyone else? Oopsie!)
- Glutenous moron (If I sit in the rows, I won't be able to escape for mid-prayer kiddush)
Rabbi tells soldiers not to act Jewish
A Guest Post by Rafi G
(originally posted on LII)
A short while ago there was a notice in the news about the IDF enforcing policy about beards. Soldiers in the IDF are not allowed to have beards unless they meet certain requirements. The army rarely enforced this and similar rules.
In an effort to improve the level of discipline, the army has decided to enforce these rules. no more beards. No longer being unkempt. No more letting things go. but because we live in a Jewish country, and the IDF has plenty of religious soldiers and wants to keep good relations with them, they had to show some flexibility on that. So they came up with a set of exceptions. Religious soldiers are allowed to have a beard, as long as they get the approval of their commanding officer.
Along comes sefirat ha'omer when we show outward displays of mourning, such as not shaving and getting haircuts, and suddenly we have a problem. People who were able to shave as per the army rules until now, suddenly cannot. But they do not have permission to let it grow out.
Yisrael HaYom newspaper wrote today about an incident in the army in which 6 soldiers affiliated with the Conservative movement wished to get permission to not shave during sefirat ha'omer. The army rabbi refused to give them recognition as religious soldiers and therefore their request was rejected. the rabbi said that he does not recognize the Conservative Movement as religious and therefore they cannot be considered religious. (they have appealed and are waiting for a response, but in the meantime they have had to shave because of this ruling).
I do not understand this rabbi's position. I understand he does not want to give any tacit recognition of the Conservative Movement - just like most Orthodox rabbis have the position of not sharing a pulpit at events with Conservative/Reform rabbis so as not to be perceived as approving of them in their positions. He thinks that by approving the request of 6 individual soldiers, he will be perceived as approving of the whole Conservative Movement.
It was not the Conservative Movement asking permission to be recognized as religious soldiers. It was 6 individual soldiers. And if they asked if they could put on tefillin, would the army rabbi not allow them saying they are not religious so they are not allowed? If they asked for time for davening, would he reject that as well?
These were 6 individual soldiers. Since when do we reject the right of individuals, no matter their affiliation, to perform mitzvahs (granted, not shaving during sefira is not actually a mitzvah per se, but it is a widespread Jewish custom)? What right did this rabbi have to reject the request of an individual to follow Jewish tradition?
The rabbi should be applauding every occurrence of his soldiers trying to keep tradition and custom, and not rejecting it.
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
(originally posted on LII)
A short while ago there was a notice in the news about the IDF enforcing policy about beards. Soldiers in the IDF are not allowed to have beards unless they meet certain requirements. The army rarely enforced this and similar rules.
In an effort to improve the level of discipline, the army has decided to enforce these rules. no more beards. No longer being unkempt. No more letting things go. but because we live in a Jewish country, and the IDF has plenty of religious soldiers and wants to keep good relations with them, they had to show some flexibility on that. So they came up with a set of exceptions. Religious soldiers are allowed to have a beard, as long as they get the approval of their commanding officer.
Along comes sefirat ha'omer when we show outward displays of mourning, such as not shaving and getting haircuts, and suddenly we have a problem. People who were able to shave as per the army rules until now, suddenly cannot. But they do not have permission to let it grow out.
Yisrael HaYom newspaper wrote today about an incident in the army in which 6 soldiers affiliated with the Conservative movement wished to get permission to not shave during sefirat ha'omer. The army rabbi refused to give them recognition as religious soldiers and therefore their request was rejected. the rabbi said that he does not recognize the Conservative Movement as religious and therefore they cannot be considered religious. (they have appealed and are waiting for a response, but in the meantime they have had to shave because of this ruling).
I do not understand this rabbi's position. I understand he does not want to give any tacit recognition of the Conservative Movement - just like most Orthodox rabbis have the position of not sharing a pulpit at events with Conservative/Reform rabbis so as not to be perceived as approving of them in their positions. He thinks that by approving the request of 6 individual soldiers, he will be perceived as approving of the whole Conservative Movement.
It was not the Conservative Movement asking permission to be recognized as religious soldiers. It was 6 individual soldiers. And if they asked if they could put on tefillin, would the army rabbi not allow them saying they are not religious so they are not allowed? If they asked for time for davening, would he reject that as well?
These were 6 individual soldiers. Since when do we reject the right of individuals, no matter their affiliation, to perform mitzvahs (granted, not shaving during sefira is not actually a mitzvah per se, but it is a widespread Jewish custom)? What right did this rabbi have to reject the request of an individual to follow Jewish tradition?
The rabbi should be applauding every occurrence of his soldiers trying to keep tradition and custom, and not rejecting it.
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Temple discrimination
@NickDupree via Twitter:
What do you think of ban on disabled kohanim doing sacrifices in this week's parsha? is that discrimination?
I replied: Yes its discrimination per 2009. Lots of Torah rules don't fit 2009 standards.
And this is true: The Torah is full of rules and requirements and presumptions that no longer fit anyone's idea of morality. Slavery is the most famous example. The rules on marriage and rape are others. Though I confess it never occured to me, I must agree the ban on disabled kohanim from participating in the Temple service is another example.
Search for more information about the ban on disabled kohanim at 4torah.com.
The Horowitz Article
Rabbi Horowitz has published a letter and an article explaining his opposition to the Markey bill.
Click here to read them.A broad-based awareness campaign informing parents about the dangers of abuse and the warning signs that might indicate their child had been victimized
Dramatically increased prison sentences for monsters who abuse children; perhaps even to the level of one who commits murder.
The dissemination of child-friendly pamphlets designed to assist parents in the delicate task of speaking to their children about personal space, good-touching-bad-touching, and other basic themes that research has proven to be highly effective in keeping children safe.
Enhanced enforcement of mandated reporting laws which require educators and healthcare professionals to report telltale signs of abuse to the authorities
Sliding-scale professional counseling for abuse victims to assure that all children who have been traumatized by the ravages of abuse have access to mental-health services regardless of their ability to pay.
Click here to read them.
5/6/09
Dear Readers:
The debate, mostly one-sided, about the Markey Bill has been framed in the starkest terms on the Internet and on the street: "If you are for the bill, you are for children; if you are opposed to it; you are a horrible person who is akin to a child molester." And in my particular case, being opposed to the bill means that I am a sellout, wimp, lackey-for-the-rabbis, biased-person-who-works-for-the-Agudah, and on and on.
Well; I don't see it that way. To me, the question is, "What are the most effective steps we can take moving forward to protect our children?"
Bringing lawsuits against yeshivos would not even rate in the "top ten" if I were to compile a list of things I would recommend to keep today's children safe and to professionally treat the countless victims of abuse in our community.
“But isn't this the only way to end the cover-ups? Don't victims have their right to their day in court? Looking at the success of similar legislation in California (hundreds of pedophiles exposed and no schools closed), how can you be opposed to the Markey Bill?
Isn't the Markey Bill better than nothing? Isn't it true that the only way to fix things is to hit the schools where it hurts -- in their wallets?”
I will address each of these questions in future columns -- and on the Zev Brenner radio program at 9:00 p.m. E.D.T. tonight, if they are posed to me in the Q&A segment.
I fully acknowledge all my biases and list my disclaimers. I am a school principal, a department head of the Agudah, I am very involved in Torah Umesorah, and I have the zechus to have close relationships with many Moetzes members.
Having said that, here are some other disclaimers:
1) No one asked me to write this column or to defend/support the Agudah's position; it was entirely my idea.
2) I would never write anything I did not fully believe in.
3) The relationship of Project YES with Agudas Yisroel is akin to one of a married child with his/her parents -- a close relationship, but fully independent. I am ultimately responsible for raising all the funds for Project YES myself, and have a great deal of latitude to do things my own way. Should I wish to; I could "spin off" Project YES from the Agudah and be completely independent at any time. Project YES and I are affiliated with the Agudah because I am proud to be so.
I wrote this column fully aware that I would take an enormous amount of personal and profession criticism for my non-support of the Markey Bill. If I was poll-driven and was looking for the accolades of people on the street, I would have joined the herd or stayed on the sidelines. This column represents a principled stand of mine, opposing what I feel is a diversion from the agenda of child safety and a material threat to our mosdos overall.
I have no fear of standing alone. I stood alone when I wrote about at-risk teens 13 years ago. I stood alone when I wrote about abuse and molestation years ago. I stood alone and was subjected to ridicule when I wrote a while back that the greatest cause of kids going off the derech was abuse, and that the "threat of the Internet is like a firecracker compared to the atom bomb of abuse" -- a position diametrically opposed to many of my colleagues, who to this day point the finger of blame to the Internet for many of our communal problems.
And I am proud to swim against the tide today -- and stand alone if I must -- firmly and humbly supporting the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah shlit”a in their stand opposing the Markey Bill.
"V'yehi chelki imahem" (May it be the will of Hashem that I have the zechus to remain with them -- in this world and the next).
Yakov Horowitz
My permission is granted to those who wish to circulate the following article on their websites, as long as it is published in its entirety with the above “letter to my readers” attached to it and the links to my articles listed below, so that your readers will understand my position on the Markey bill, in the context of my broader writings about abuse and molestation over the past several years. Y.H.
Walking the Dog Backwards
Why I Am Opposed to the Markey Bill
If you were to attend a convention of mental health professionals who specialize in treating abuse victims and you were to ask the attendees which steps or initiatives they would like to see implemented to protect children from predators and to assist those who have already been victimized, you would probably get responses like:
With that in mind, even a cursory examination of the “Child Victims Act” of New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey begs the question of why not one of the items listed above is included in a bill ostensibly designed with the noble goal of helping to protect children?”
The “Markey” legislation would extend the statute of limitations in New York State on both criminal and civil cases involving the sexual abuse of children. It would also open a one-year "window" during which time victims of abuse could bring claims for events that occurred even decades ago, not only against the perpetrators but also against the institutions that employed them.
The bill has been the subject of intense debate in our community as of late, as many abuse victims and people who are advocating for child abuse prevention have passionately supported the bill. The recent joint statement released by Agudath Israel and Torah Umesorah opposing the “Markey” legislation generated a great deal of discussion, much of it critical – from outside the Agudah constituency and even from members of our own kehila.
There are other significant questions come to mind as well when reflecting upon the Markey Bill. Currently, children who attended public school have only 90 days after they turn 18 to file a claim for abuse that occurred in public school. The Markey Bill would not change that in any way. Why would secular legislators in Albany be interested in protecting kids attending parochial schools more than those in the broader population?
Imagine the (appropriate) public outrage that would ensue if the New York State Government were to offer free flu shots to private school kids and not to those attending public schools! (It is perfectly fair to note that public schools have far more safety measures for screening, training and oversight than do private schools. But to suggest that there is little or no abuse in public schools and, by extension, that public school kids are not in need of legislation to protect them is flat-out ridiculous.)
Additionally, what is being done to prevent the cycle from repeating itself, as we all know that untreated victims are far more likely to abuse others? Shouldn’t we turn over every stone to help fund the treatment of abuse victims – for their own mental health and for the safety of our community at large?
Due to the fact that I have been for years now, and will always continue to be, a staunch and vocal advocate for victims of abuse and molestation worldwide – writing and lecturing about the horrors of abuse in our community long before any of the ugly media reports and lawsuits began and long before it became socially acceptable to do so – I was approached by many dedicated individuals and asked to throw my support behind the bill. I fended off the requests and stayed on the sidelines, as my antenna kept tingling each time I read and re-read the content of the bill, mostly because I was troubled by the dichotomy between the treatment of abuse in private and public schools, and by the exclusion of far more immediate and effective measures that would help today’s children directly. Something just didn’t add up.
The term, “Walking the dog backwards,” was coined to explain a common technique employed by those who work in the complicated galaxy of counter-intelligence and who are constantly playing a 3-dimentional game of chess as they sift through a mishmash of information and disinformation in a world where the average spy might be a double or triple agent. Therefore, when faced with a perplexing set of circumstances, they are trained to evaluate who stands to gain or lose from the final result of any particular chain of events and, working backwards, think about the real cause-and-effect of things.
Well; we all know that the world of politics is similarly filled with plots and sub-plots, so I decided to approach things from that end and examine the Markey Bill through the prism of the entire public school/private school debate.
It is a debate that consistently spills over into battles across the nation over school vouchers, tax-credits for private school tuition, taxpayer support for private school services such as remedial and counseling services; the list goes on and on, with public school advocates vigorously opposing any funding for private schools – even for such things as the aforementioned remedial and counseling services that help children and not schools – claiming that they undermine the public schools. And it is a debate that will have enormous ramifications for members of our community moving forward – especially as we look to states and school districts for relief from staggering tuition payments in this tanking economy.
Ok; let’s do some dog walking. Question: Who is the most vocal advocate for public school rights? Answer: The very powerful teachers unions who have opposed every initiative to offer even public school parents choices to educate their kids with school vouchers. That would certainly explain why the Markey Bill doesn’t include public school children who were victims of abuse in the legislation – as the teacher’s union vigorously opposes such legislation. And who is the most powerful voice advocating for private schools? The Catholic Church, of course.
Here is another angle that might be playing a part in this. One of the main sponsors of the bill in its current form is Senator Tom Duane, who was also a chief sponsor of the Gay Marriage Bill. Here, too, there is a great deal of tension between advocates for Gay Marriage and the Church. Thus any action taken to embarrass, undermine and de-legitimize the Church in the eyes of the public, directly and profoundly pushes the Gay Marriage agenda forward as it weakens their most powerful opponent. After all, what better way to undermine the moral authority of the Church than to encourage civil lawsuits against it that will drag on for years, drain its coffers and fill the headlines of the tabloids with all its tawdry details day after day?
I suggest that if you step back a bit and survey the Markey Bill in its entirety, you will come to come to the conclusion that I have – that while the Markey Bill promotes the safety of children, it is also being used to undermine the private school movement and religious community overall far beyond the abuse issue. At a minimum, it needs to be recognized that this matter needs to be understood in a much broader context and is not the one-dimensional issue that it is portrayed to be.
Does all this mean that I am pleased with the status quo? Does it mean that I am in favor of quashing efforts to protect our children? Does it mean that we do not need to do everything in our power and leave no stone unturned to educate our parents and educators about the ravages of abuse? Do I think that the amazing, dedicated frum activists for child safety, many of whom are close friends of mine (a few of them actually ‘met’ on my website), have any part in the negative aspects of what I wrote about? No, No, No and No!!
To sum things up, I most certainly feel that change and improvement in our understanding and treatment of abuse and abusers is desperately needed – something I have loudly and passionately advocated for many years now. The Markey Bill, however, is a crude tool to accomplish that task, one that is, in my opinion, driven by a host of agendas that are diametrically opposed to ours and one, that to loosely quote our gedolim shlit”a in their carefully written and nuanced statement, has the ability to cause material damage to the mosdos haTorah that our parents and grandparents built over the past hundred years with their sweat and tears. Therefore, it is my recommendation that members of our community oppose this particular bill as it is currently written.
The Jewish Press graciously accepted my request to afford me twice the regular op-ed column size due to the nature and sensitivity of this topic. However, there is much more that I did not get to in this essay. Should you wish to, you can review the many columns I have written over the years on abuse and abuse prevention if you wish to better understand my thinking on these matters (They can all be found on my website, www.rabbihorowitz.com)
Over the next few weeks, I will lay out a vision for what I think needs to be done, internally and legislatively, to finally – after all these years, after all the drug overdoses and suicides, after all the shattered lives – make our community a safer place for our children and grandchildren.
© 2009, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, all rights reserved
Recommended reading:
The Monster Inside
Safe and Secure
Human Problems
Why Avrahom Mondrowitz Must Be Extradited
Why I Write Columns About Abuse
All Pain and No Gain
L'Maan Hashem -- What Will It Take?
Olam Hafuch Ra'isi
Could This Possibly Be True?
Deal With It
Don't Disturb the Party -- Ever Wonder What Our Children Are Thinking?
The chop shop of Ramapo
A Guest Post by Rafi G
(originally posted on LII)
Carol Friedman clearly had some hostility towards the local yeshiva. I am pretty sure slaughtering a cow was not the way to try to improve relations with her and othe neighbors...
See the video: here
I have slaughtered plenty of stuff in backyards, but never a cow. the largest animal I shechted in a backyard (really it was a porch) was a sheep. But I must say - the fact that it is in a backyard does not make it cruel...
Lohud reports:
DB: I googled the addresss supplied by the article, and found a "street view." Click here and drag the little yellow man on to the road. It appears this yeshiva is located in the middle of farm country.
Search for more information about slaughetring at 4torah.com.
(originally posted on LII)
Carol Friedman clearly had some hostility towards the local yeshiva. I am pretty sure slaughtering a cow was not the way to try to improve relations with her and othe neighbors...
See the video: here
I have slaughtered plenty of stuff in backyards, but never a cow. the largest animal I shechted in a backyard (really it was a porch) was a sheep. But I must say - the fact that it is in a backyard does not make it cruel...
Lohud reports:
The best part of the video is when she says, "That's too big to be a dog"Neighbor Carol Friedman saw adults and teens from the school lead the cow from a brown van into the backyard shortly after 5 p.m. She did not see what happened in the yard, but another neighbor told her that the animal was tied to a tree and slaughtered with knives
"It's the most horrendous, barbaric thing I have ever heard of," she said. "I can't believe they would slaughter a cow in a backyard in a residential neighborhood."
DB: I googled the addresss supplied by the article, and found a "street view." Click here and drag the little yellow man on to the road. It appears this yeshiva is located in the middle of farm country.
Search for more information about slaughetring at 4torah.com.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Post-Geographic Judaism
A guest post by Y-Love
Anyone who has a message relevant to any segment of the general populace in America, be they corporate or non-profit, will eventually have to develop and maintain some sort of presence on social networks if they want their message to be heard. Period. We already know that the majority of young adults (75% of Americans aged 18-24, according to Pew) are on social networks, but 3.2 million seniors have also joined Facebook in the past year. Social networking is bigger than email. Social media has far beyond proven itself as being an integral part of any marketing or publicity strategy.
Click to continue reading Post-Geographic Judaism
Essentially, the affiliated Jewish community could be similarly defined: a group of people who choose to interact with the same type of content -- granted, much more sublime (Divine?) content than YouTube's -- united by a bond infinitely stronger than a mass group invitation. Today's "community" is a group of people whose connection is not determined by geography, but by their affinity for the content which unites them. It is the affinity for publicly available code that unites the open source community; similarly, it is the affinity for Jewish values, texts and concepts that unites the Jewish community.
Anyone who has a message relevant to any segment of the general populace in America, be they corporate or non-profit, will eventually have to develop and maintain some sort of presence on social networks if they want their message to be heard. Period. We already know that the majority of young adults (75% of Americans aged 18-24, according to Pew) are on social networks, but 3.2 million seniors have also joined Facebook in the past year. Social networking is bigger than email. Social media has far beyond proven itself as being an integral part of any marketing or publicity strategy.
But on a sociological level, social networking has also irreversibly altered the definition of the interpersonal relationship. A "friend" is what one gains with a click of a button, itemized on a "list"; what one "likes" is their content. We make new "friends" when we find other network members with similar interests. Ours is an age of feeds and connections, of following and stumbling, of seamlessly interacting with our favorite brands, celebrities and highschool classmates in a growing sea of content. Those who interact with the same type or source of content -- be they programmers updating the same piece of open-source software, a social network's user base, or a group of armchair videographers documenting their lives on YouTube -- invariably eventually form a "community."
Click to continue reading Post-Geographic Judaism
Essentially, the affiliated Jewish community could be similarly defined: a group of people who choose to interact with the same type of content -- granted, much more sublime (Divine?) content than YouTube's -- united by a bond infinitely stronger than a mass group invitation. Today's "community" is a group of people whose connection is not determined by geography, but by their affinity for the content which unites them. It is the affinity for publicly available code that unites the open source community; similarly, it is the affinity for Jewish values, texts and concepts that unites the Jewish community.
Affinity and geography may not always intersect. It holds true for web 2.0 and exponentially more true for Jewish life. There is no shortage of testimonies of people who are bogged down by the geographically-defined Jewish communities in which they live.
It has become counter-productive, then, to define Jewish community in terms of geographic location: both to the Jews in and outside of said community.
It is time for post-geographic Judaism.
Our Jewish neighborhoods -- especially Orthodox ones (especially in New York) -- are rife with Jewish kids (and adults) who are finding themselves in the wrong place, all the time. When one is dissatisfied with one's immediate surroundings -- the shul, the JCC, the neighborhood -- one tends to withdraw, a withdrawal which can equal dropping out entirely in smaller communities. Yet the social networks are still there -- perhaps even more so.
We must begin to at least partially divest the offline relationship from the idea of affiliation. If there is anything we have learned from Facebook, it is how easy it is to, with enough tenacity, scour the globe and find "one million people" who agree with a given assertion or cause. Jewish causes are no exception. These people are effectively no less connected than their offline counterparts in a community center. While there may be less of us going to shul and joining Jewish organizations, more of us are joining -- and becoming active participants in -- Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
A decline in synagogue attendance and offline affiliation does not necessarily mean the death-knell for Jewish observance when organic, intentional online communities are seen as equally relevant and salient as their offline counterparts. When we see our online relationships not as "less than" our offline ones, but as differently-structured equally strong connections, our sense of "community" is redefined. In the online realm, a user goes from "unaffiliated" to "connected" in an instant. Every connection is intentional, yet effortless. This is a phenomenon which can save Judaism.
Social networking has not superseded "organized religion", in fact, it has re-organized it.
Barriers to affiliation can cease to exist if the chat room is seen as equal to the pew. A "join" button is far less daunting than an unfamiliar synagogue, and its connections no less real. A rabbi accessible via text message is now privy to his congregation's thoughts when they are secure behind their cell phones. A webcasted Hillel event now has twice as many attendees. And perhaps most importantly, the previously cold or unfamiliar minyan is now a tweetup, comprised of members who follow each other -- because they like each others' content. Top-down hierarchical rabbinic communication is being eschewed in favor of the Hillary-esque "conversation"-- and as we learned from the Lipa Shmelczer incident, even the most ideologically conservative communities no longer stomach being talked "at".
Building offline religious/cultural affiliation can only be done in the framework of the new sociology. The offline relationship is no longer the "goal" of the online interaction -- social media must be appreciated as equally valid and viable alternative modes of communication. Until the Facebook group member, Twitter follower, and MySpace friend all feel as connected to our organizations as the person in the adjacent chair, that chair will always be in danger of remaining empty.
(crossposted to Jewschool)
Is Yaakov Horowitz Selling Out on Markey?
And am I selling out if I don't think he is?
For those joining us late
Since Kolko: I've been all over Agudah for doing a terrible job on pedophilia. In particular I've attacked Avi Shafran for refusing to face the music, and running interference at every opportunity. I've also criticized Agudah for working with the Catholic Church to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers. [More]
Since Kolko: I've come to know and respect Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz, an Agudah insider with a golden reputation and a silver-tipped pen. I've known RYH for three years, and the man is honest, reliable, and doesn't play any of the stupid Agudah games.
Yesterday: We learn from VIN that Rabbi Horowitz is opposing the Markey Bill
INTERPOLATION The Markey Bill "would suspend the seven-year statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases for a year. That means those who allege abuse could file civil lawsuits no matter how long ago the abuse took place. The bill would open the door to lawsuits against all kinds of clergy, coaches, teachers, doctors, Scout leaders, baby-sitters, therapists, camp counselors and members of victims' own families." (Newsday) END INTERPOLATION
Yesterday: Shmarya rips RYH, calls him a sell-out and accuses him of putting Jewish schools ahead of children.
Yesterday: Harry rips Shmarya, accuse him of chuzpah and worse
ASIDE Yay! Ugliness! END ASIDE
Last night: I receive an email: "Nu? You aren't going after [RHY] for his despicable position on the molestation law?" Similar emails follow.
So... I listen to what RHY has to say, and give it a good think. Here's my slide: Marky is a good-but-not-great law.
Negatives: (1) It will hurt yeshivas, but any yeshiva that protected someone like Kolko deserves the pain. RHY worries that the expense of litigation will cause suffering Yeshivot to pass some pain on to their employees, in the form of late(r) paychecks. That's true, but to me, irrelevant. Paying employees late is both despicable and forbidden by Torah law. Telling us that our support of Markey will force Yeshivot to violate halacha and hurt their employees is a form of blackmail, and one that should be ignored.
(2) It will destroy yeshivot. Some reputable institutions will go bankrupt fighting lawsuits; others will avoid the expense and embaressment by simply disapearing into the night. This is a lamentable consequence of Markey, but one I am willing to accept.
(3) It excludes public schools. This is a flaw in the bill, certainly, but not a reason for opposing it. If the only problem with Marky is that it is too narrow, why not pass it, and then go to work on a separate public school bill?
Positives: (1) Markey makes it easier to punish pedophiles.
(2) Markey makes it easier to punish schools and administrator who protected pedophiles
(3) Markey makes it easier to stop pedophiles. Vengance is great (see 1 & 2 above) but a more important concern is this: Pedophiles often go on abusing children for decades. Extending the statute of limitations makes it easier for a former victim to save a current victim.
(4) Markey makes it easier for us to find out the truth about pedophilia in yeshivot. Some say its a widescale problem; others insist it happens very infrequently. I don't know who's right, but we should find out. Markey will help.
Final thoughts: Support Markey
Is Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz a sell out: No. His position here raises eyebrows, but his record speaks for itself and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's promised to put forward his reasoning in a Jewish Press column (which will appear here.) Until I see the anti-Markey argument he publishes, I'm content to believe that RYH 's position is principled, but incorrect.
For those joining us late
Since Kolko: I've been all over Agudah for doing a terrible job on pedophilia. In particular I've attacked Avi Shafran for refusing to face the music, and running interference at every opportunity. I've also criticized Agudah for working with the Catholic Church to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers. [More]
Since Kolko: I've come to know and respect Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz, an Agudah insider with a golden reputation and a silver-tipped pen. I've known RYH for three years, and the man is honest, reliable, and doesn't play any of the stupid Agudah games.
Yesterday: We learn from VIN that Rabbi Horowitz is opposing the Markey Bill
INTERPOLATION The Markey Bill "would suspend the seven-year statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases for a year. That means those who allege abuse could file civil lawsuits no matter how long ago the abuse took place. The bill would open the door to lawsuits against all kinds of clergy, coaches, teachers, doctors, Scout leaders, baby-sitters, therapists, camp counselors and members of victims' own families." (Newsday) END INTERPOLATION
Yesterday: Shmarya rips RYH, calls him a sell-out and accuses him of putting Jewish schools ahead of children.
Yesterday: Harry rips Shmarya, accuse him of chuzpah and worse
ASIDE Yay! Ugliness! END ASIDE
Last night: I receive an email: "Nu? You aren't going after [RHY] for his despicable position on the molestation law?" Similar emails follow.
So... I listen to what RHY has to say, and give it a good think. Here's my slide: Marky is a good-but-not-great law.
Negatives: (1) It will hurt yeshivas, but any yeshiva that protected someone like Kolko deserves the pain. RHY worries that the expense of litigation will cause suffering Yeshivot to pass some pain on to their employees, in the form of late(r) paychecks. That's true, but to me, irrelevant. Paying employees late is both despicable and forbidden by Torah law. Telling us that our support of Markey will force Yeshivot to violate halacha and hurt their employees is a form of blackmail, and one that should be ignored.
(2) It will destroy yeshivot. Some reputable institutions will go bankrupt fighting lawsuits; others will avoid the expense and embaressment by simply disapearing into the night. This is a lamentable consequence of Markey, but one I am willing to accept.
(3) It excludes public schools. This is a flaw in the bill, certainly, but not a reason for opposing it. If the only problem with Marky is that it is too narrow, why not pass it, and then go to work on a separate public school bill?
Positives: (1) Markey makes it easier to punish pedophiles.
(2) Markey makes it easier to punish schools and administrator who protected pedophiles
(3) Markey makes it easier to stop pedophiles. Vengance is great (see 1 & 2 above) but a more important concern is this: Pedophiles often go on abusing children for decades. Extending the statute of limitations makes it easier for a former victim to save a current victim.
(4) Markey makes it easier for us to find out the truth about pedophilia in yeshivot. Some say its a widescale problem; others insist it happens very infrequently. I don't know who's right, but we should find out. Markey will help.
Final thoughts: Support Markey
Is Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz a sell out: No. His position here raises eyebrows, but his record speaks for itself and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's promised to put forward his reasoning in a Jewish Press column (which will appear here.) Until I see the anti-Markey argument he publishes, I'm content to believe that RYH 's position is principled, but incorrect.
PSA
As those of you who read sidebars have discovered, I'm developing a new blogroll. If you'd like to be included, the answer is "yes." Just email me, or comment here.
A Yoetzet Halacha, or female halacha advisor, is a well-trained woman who provides religious and halachic guidance to other woman, often about Niddah issues. Well-trained women make some people nervous. And even though the YH never operates absent a Rabbi's supervisions, some male members of the Jewish clergy are anxious about having someone cutting in on their turf. For an example of what happens next, let's join Yaakov Feitman's attempt to discredit the female upstarts, already in progress:
1. Why bother? The yoetzet halacha serves two needs. First, many woman don't she answers question.
The Yoetzat Halacha is a well-trained woman, .
I like bad historical arguments as much as the next person, but bad historical arguments that are also self-contradictory are a little hard to take. Consider, for example, this rabbi's attempt to discredit the Yoetzet Halacha, or female halacha advisor.
He begins by saying he objects to allowing well-trained women guide and advisse other women because this is something new under the sun, and therefore impossible. Absurd, but fine. However, by the end of the article he's advising women to go to the rebbetzin instead. Pardon my confusion, but if its ok for a woman to speak to her rebbetzin, what's wrong with going to a yoetzet instead?
Sponsored Message
- Celebrate Purim 2009 with Magnificent Purim Baskets - Mishloach Manot from Oh Nuts.
The gestalt of Torah is as much part and parcel of Mattan Torah as its substance. Gedolei Yisrael through the ages were moser nefesh for the form as much as for the substance. The institution of a chavrusah, learning at a shtender, the format of a shiur are all time-honored and hallowed.Which is why those Jews who learn alone, or at tables, never amount to anything.
Entirely false. The yeshiva was closed not because the government asked for changes in the way Torah was taught, but because the government wanted to impose a general studies cirriculum that would have left very little time for Torah. The government asked for no changes in the Torah teaching process.
An assault upon the process has always been treated as seriously as an attack upon the Torah itself. For instance, the Netziv closed the great Yeshiva of Volozhin rather than introduce government-mandated innovations.
Torah giants insisted on the tzuras ha’daf—the exact printed format of a page of the Talmud and myriad details of the transmission of Torah from a rebbi to a disciple.Our current tzuras ha’daf was created by Daniel Bomberg, a non Jew, in the 16th century. Its true, that some 20th century Rabbis objected strongly when other 20th century Rabbis suggesting updating the format, but its absurd to say that Bomberg's early-modern innovation is something essential to the study of Torah.
The relationship between a rav and those who ask a she’eilah has remained a fundamental component of the “Torah from Sinai” continuum for over three millennia. Each person develops a bond with his or her poseik. Over the years,That's right! No new experts! Now hold on to that thought, because Feitman's about to contradict it.
innumerable often subtle details contribute to the total picture presented to a poseik, especially in this most personal area of life. The interposition of a new “expert” into this equation undercuts the time-honored process developed by
the Torah ever since Dovid haMelech
All in all, Jewish tradition has provided K’lal Yisrael with a wonderfulI agree "nothing is broken" but the current system has two flaws. (1) Depsite everything you've said about history, there are still women who are shy and
process for resolving all issues. We would do well to take advantage of it.
Nothing is broken and no fixing is necessary.
1. Why bother? The yoetzet halacha serves two needs. First, many woman don't she answers question.
The Yoetzat Halacha is a well-trained woman, .
I like bad historical arguments as much as the next person, but bad historical arguments that are also self-contradictory are a little hard to take. Consider, for example, this rabbi's attempt to discredit the Yoetzet Halacha, or female halacha advisor.
He begins by saying he objects to allowing well-trained women guide and advisse other women because this is something new under the sun, and therefore impossible. Absurd, but fine. However, by the end of the article he's advising women to go to the rebbetzin instead. Pardon my confusion, but if its ok for a woman to speak to her rebbetzin, what's wrong with going to a yoetzet instead?
Sponsored Message
- Celebrate Purim 2009 with Magnificent Purim Baskets - Mishloach Manot from Oh Nuts.
A shul I would not frequent
Other horribly named Jewish institutions include:
- Torah Institute of Teaneck
- Schechter Hebrew Acadamy of Torah; and
- Camp Horei Maarav
HT Amshi the excellent
Search for more information about poorly named shuls at 4torah.com.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Boycott J-Post!!
Will heads roll in the advertising dept, or is this business as usual for Israel's #1 English newspaper?
Search for more information about pulled pork at 4torah.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)