Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Jewish Voters and Barack Obama
From the Times letter column
Published: May 27, 2008
To the Editor:
Obama Asks Jewish Voters to Judge Him on His Policies (May 23, 2008) Re “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts” (front page, May 22):
As a 60-plus Jewish resident of Boca Raton, Fla., who is deeply committed to Israel, I refuse to be identified and pigeonholed with all the people who fit my demographic profile and whom you quoted in your article about Jewish voters in Florida.
Contrary to what your readers might gather from your article, we are not a homogeneous bloc. This presidential campaign has been exciting and has energized so many people, not only because we are fed up with the mess created by the Bush administration, but also because it has shown that intelligence and leadership ability transcend race and gender.
It is high time that the media stop contributing to all the negative stereotypes. There are so many of us who care profoundly about Israel and just as much about America. We want to see the United States restored to a position of leadership and respect worldwide.
Myriam Weinstein
Boca Raton, Fla., May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The distinction between older Jews and younger Jews, in terms of their views of Barack Obama, tells only half of the story.
As a 55-year-old Jewish woman, I support Mr. Obama, and have given little thought to his race (or Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender). The fact is that baby boomer Jews — and younger — have had a great deal of experience working with and socializing with African-American professionals, an experience that older Jews may not have shared.
Truth be told, many of us baby boomers do not notice race or gender — what we notice is class. We are comfortable with Mr. Obama because he went to good schools, because he is an intellectual, because, despite humble beginnings, like many Jews of our generation, he is now part of the professional class, living the American Dream, sending his children to the best schools, camp, lessons and so on.
In this important way, we recognize him — he is like us. Does that mean that we all support him? Not necessarily, but if not, it is not because of his race.
Ellyn S. Roth
New York, May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The community of older Jewish voters who were alive during World War II should understand better than any other group of voters the danger of choosing leaders based on ethnic origin and skin color, instead of the qualifications and policies of the candidates.
Noel E. Hanf
Guilford, Conn., May 22, 2008
Published: May 27, 2008
To the Editor:
Obama Asks Jewish Voters to Judge Him on His Policies (May 23, 2008) Re “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts” (front page, May 22):
As a 60-plus Jewish resident of Boca Raton, Fla., who is deeply committed to Israel, I refuse to be identified and pigeonholed with all the people who fit my demographic profile and whom you quoted in your article about Jewish voters in Florida.
Contrary to what your readers might gather from your article, we are not a homogeneous bloc. This presidential campaign has been exciting and has energized so many people, not only because we are fed up with the mess created by the Bush administration, but also because it has shown that intelligence and leadership ability transcend race and gender.
It is high time that the media stop contributing to all the negative stereotypes. There are so many of us who care profoundly about Israel and just as much about America. We want to see the United States restored to a position of leadership and respect worldwide.
Myriam Weinstein
Boca Raton, Fla., May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The distinction between older Jews and younger Jews, in terms of their views of Barack Obama, tells only half of the story.
As a 55-year-old Jewish woman, I support Mr. Obama, and have given little thought to his race (or Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender). The fact is that baby boomer Jews — and younger — have had a great deal of experience working with and socializing with African-American professionals, an experience that older Jews may not have shared.
Truth be told, many of us baby boomers do not notice race or gender — what we notice is class. We are comfortable with Mr. Obama because he went to good schools, because he is an intellectual, because, despite humble beginnings, like many Jews of our generation, he is now part of the professional class, living the American Dream, sending his children to the best schools, camp, lessons and so on.
In this important way, we recognize him — he is like us. Does that mean that we all support him? Not necessarily, but if not, it is not because of his race.
Ellyn S. Roth
New York, May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The community of older Jewish voters who were alive during World War II should understand better than any other group of voters the danger of choosing leaders based on ethnic origin and skin color, instead of the qualifications and policies of the candidates.
Noel E. Hanf
Guilford, Conn., May 22, 2008
the inaccuracies of a translation
A Guest Post by Rafi G.
It is interesting to note how different news media translate the same Hebrew word to different English words, and how that can change the tone of the article.
Yesterday PM Olmert said that only those who are "Hazui" can still believe in the concept of a "Greater Israel".
"Hazui" is a Hebrew word that seems difficult to translate precisely. My Babylon translation software comes up with no suggested translation for the word when I submit it for translation.
A sampling of how the various media outlets translated it:
Haaretz: those who hallucinate
Ynet : delusinoal fantisists
JPost: bizzare people
This goes to show you that translations need to be taken with a grain of salt. The words the translator uses have been selected not necessarily for their accuracy, rather to convey a certain message.
This is why the Septuagint was considered such a tragedy. Until then the Torah had not been translated, and by setting a precedent, it was opening a door for corruptible translations to be entered into our libraries.
Whenever possible - read from the original in the original language. Even if the translator had the best of intentions, it is prone to inaccuracies just because it is not always possible to get an exact translation.
It is interesting to note how different news media translate the same Hebrew word to different English words, and how that can change the tone of the article.
Yesterday PM Olmert said that only those who are "Hazui" can still believe in the concept of a "Greater Israel".
"Hazui" is a Hebrew word that seems difficult to translate precisely. My Babylon translation software comes up with no suggested translation for the word when I submit it for translation.
A sampling of how the various media outlets translated it:
Haaretz: those who hallucinate
Ynet : delusinoal fantisists
JPost: bizzare people
This goes to show you that translations need to be taken with a grain of salt. The words the translator uses have been selected not necessarily for their accuracy, rather to convey a certain message.
This is why the Septuagint was considered such a tragedy. Until then the Torah had not been translated, and by setting a precedent, it was opening a door for corruptible translations to be entered into our libraries.
Whenever possible - read from the original in the original language. Even if the translator had the best of intentions, it is prone to inaccuracies just because it is not always possible to get an exact translation.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Magic and Mitzvoth
Sometimes, I wonder if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might be jealous.
He was the chief editor of the Mishna, after all, the first great code of Jewish law, a code studied to this day by school children and scholars alike, while also serving as a key leader of the Jewish community during Roman times. Yet the glory -if glory is measured in songs and stories- goes to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the man who may have written the Zohar, and is remembered, to this day, on his feast day, with bonfires and other tributes, including a pair of very long prayer poems which suggest, among other praises, that Bar Yochai was holy from the moment of his conception.
I want to win some of that glory for Yehuda HaNasi. I want celebrations in his honor, celebrations of scholarship, and for the talent for organization that made the Mishna possible. Too much is made of mysticism. Too many Jews seek redemption by dunking in Mikvahs and running to graves and miracle workers, by mumbling Pslams, or performing segulahs. A feast day for Yehuda Hanasi, one with all the accoutrements (save, of course, the hagiographies, and the extolments borrowed from Christianity that make up the Lag Bomer liturgy) might trim the boat, and redirect some of Jewish energy and attention toward the neglected idea that a Jew is redeemed through mitvoth -not through magic, mysticism, or miracles.
Original Post
He was the chief editor of the Mishna, after all, the first great code of Jewish law, a code studied to this day by school children and scholars alike, while also serving as a key leader of the Jewish community during Roman times. Yet the glory -if glory is measured in songs and stories- goes to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the man who may have written the Zohar, and is remembered, to this day, on his feast day, with bonfires and other tributes, including a pair of very long prayer poems which suggest, among other praises, that Bar Yochai was holy from the moment of his conception.
I want to win some of that glory for Yehuda HaNasi. I want celebrations in his honor, celebrations of scholarship, and for the talent for organization that made the Mishna possible. Too much is made of mysticism. Too many Jews seek redemption by dunking in Mikvahs and running to graves and miracle workers, by mumbling Pslams, or performing segulahs. A feast day for Yehuda Hanasi, one with all the accoutrements (save, of course, the hagiographies, and the extolments borrowed from Christianity that make up the Lag Bomer liturgy) might trim the boat, and redirect some of Jewish energy and attention toward the neglected idea that a Jew is redeemed through mitvoth -not through magic, mysticism, or miracles.
Original Post
God's love is a double edged sword
A Guest Post By Rafi G.
Love. A double edged sword.
Last week we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Love. A double edged sword.
Last week we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The problem with homosexuality (R-rated)
A guest post by Charlie Hall (written about two years ago)
'Facts cannot be wished away by theories, no matter how cherished.' - Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm:
http://www.yu.edu/lamm/seventy.html
There has been a flurry of blog activity recently regarding homosexuality, triggered in part by the success of Ang Lee's film "Brokeback Mountain" and also by the fact that the Conservative movement is discussing the issue this week. I'd like to take a moment to discuss this issue not from a public policy perspective nor even from a halachic perspective, but to point out from an Orthodox perspective some hashgafic problems that I think have been ignored.
Regarding Rabbi Dr. Lamm's quote above, the hashgafic problem stems from the fact that there are some people who just seem to have been created by HaShem to be sexually attracted only to people of the same sex. Of course, there are many who disagree with that statement, which I'll get to in a moment, but I want to speak first to those of us who consider ourselves open-minded, liberal, and accepting of empiricism.
It is clear that there is a prohibition in the Torah against men having sex with men. Oh, you can come up with some pilpul that might limit it a bit, maybe to anal-genital intercourse, but the fact is, it is there. It has been there for over 3,000 years. There is nothing I can see in the tradition that would limit it much if at all. And it is equally clear from our tradition that Jewish men are supposed to get married and try to have families. It is, according to our tradition, a mitzvah from the Torah. And according to our tradition there is a similar prohibition from the Rabbis against women having sex with women.
This should be a huge hashgafic problem for those who see Judaism as a Way that all should be able to follow. It is a problem for those of us who notice that the biggest Gay bashers tend also to be the biggest anti-Semites. It is a problem for those of us who notice that Hitler was just as adamant to exterminate homosexuals as to exterminate Jews. It is a problem for those of us who see Torah as having no conflict with modern society and modern liberal sensibilities -- and can cite compelling sources in favor of our position. This just doesn't fit.
And maybe that is the point. I am one of those folks whose politics shifted quite a bit to the left as I became observant and discovered the Torah's ethical teachings. I strongly believe that it is the Jews who support laissez-faire capitalism who ought to be troubled by the Torah -- it just isn't a Torah value. But this is the one for us liberals. It isn't easy. It is a challenge. And it has no easy resolution.
This is not a justification for bigotry, discrimination, or even exclusion of anyone from the Jewish community. Yeshiva University doesn't even discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: http://www.yu.edu/policies/index.asp. But those few of us Orthodox liberals left do understand that this is not easy for us. Torah is indeed supposed to be a challenge and this is the big one for me -- not Shabat, not kashrut, not taharat hamispacha, not believing in God and in miracles.
Now, to the folks who deny the problem: It isn't going away. Homosexuality is as real as evolution, and it isn't going away. Those of us who assume that it is all a matter of choice are in denial about both the facts and this problem. And that there are so many who choose to stay in denial represents to me a discouraging sign for a religion. Denial makes this problem easy. It is *their* fault.
That's not Torah. It isn't supposed to be easy. If we don't get our ideas challenged, what is the point? Making it look like things are always clearcut and that it is easy to always be on the right side of things actually misrepresents Torah. If it were truly so easy there would be no point, no stimulus for growth.
Any feedback is appreciated.
'Facts cannot be wished away by theories, no matter how cherished.' - Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm:
http://www.yu.edu/lamm/seventy.html
There has been a flurry of blog activity recently regarding homosexuality, triggered in part by the success of Ang Lee's film "Brokeback Mountain" and also by the fact that the Conservative movement is discussing the issue this week. I'd like to take a moment to discuss this issue not from a public policy perspective nor even from a halachic perspective, but to point out from an Orthodox perspective some hashgafic problems that I think have been ignored.
Regarding Rabbi Dr. Lamm's quote above, the hashgafic problem stems from the fact that there are some people who just seem to have been created by HaShem to be sexually attracted only to people of the same sex. Of course, there are many who disagree with that statement, which I'll get to in a moment, but I want to speak first to those of us who consider ourselves open-minded, liberal, and accepting of empiricism.
It is clear that there is a prohibition in the Torah against men having sex with men. Oh, you can come up with some pilpul that might limit it a bit, maybe to anal-genital intercourse, but the fact is, it is there. It has been there for over 3,000 years. There is nothing I can see in the tradition that would limit it much if at all. And it is equally clear from our tradition that Jewish men are supposed to get married and try to have families. It is, according to our tradition, a mitzvah from the Torah. And according to our tradition there is a similar prohibition from the Rabbis against women having sex with women.
This should be a huge hashgafic problem for those who see Judaism as a Way that all should be able to follow. It is a problem for those of us who notice that the biggest Gay bashers tend also to be the biggest anti-Semites. It is a problem for those of us who notice that Hitler was just as adamant to exterminate homosexuals as to exterminate Jews. It is a problem for those of us who see Torah as having no conflict with modern society and modern liberal sensibilities -- and can cite compelling sources in favor of our position. This just doesn't fit.
And maybe that is the point. I am one of those folks whose politics shifted quite a bit to the left as I became observant and discovered the Torah's ethical teachings. I strongly believe that it is the Jews who support laissez-faire capitalism who ought to be troubled by the Torah -- it just isn't a Torah value. But this is the one for us liberals. It isn't easy. It is a challenge. And it has no easy resolution.
This is not a justification for bigotry, discrimination, or even exclusion of anyone from the Jewish community. Yeshiva University doesn't even discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: http://www.yu.edu/policies/index.asp. But those few of us Orthodox liberals left do understand that this is not easy for us. Torah is indeed supposed to be a challenge and this is the big one for me -- not Shabat, not kashrut, not taharat hamispacha, not believing in God and in miracles.
Now, to the folks who deny the problem: It isn't going away. Homosexuality is as real as evolution, and it isn't going away. Those of us who assume that it is all a matter of choice are in denial about both the facts and this problem. And that there are so many who choose to stay in denial represents to me a discouraging sign for a religion. Denial makes this problem easy. It is *their* fault.
That's not Torah. It isn't supposed to be easy. If we don't get our ideas challenged, what is the point? Making it look like things are always clearcut and that it is easy to always be on the right side of things actually misrepresents Torah. If it were truly so easy there would be no point, no stimulus for growth.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Friday, May 23, 2008
What I should have posted on Yom Hashoa
An unintended display of honesty from the Yated
A Yated Survey which seems to admit fully 1/4 of what the paper does is "Criticism of others."
Abominations
Another Oldie/Goodie
Abominations
E X A M P L E S
The word of God:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: -Leviticus 11:10
Nonetheless, GOP-Jews are pleased to tolerate Red Lobster, Captain Jack and the sea-food section at Pathmark. They also raise no objections when the government provides those companies with licenses, permits, subsidies, tax breaks, and all of the other benefits the non-abominable businesses receive. Where's the outrage?
The word of God:
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. -Leviticus 11:10
According to GOP-Jew logic, isn't our culture "celebrating" an abomination if it permits people to eat insects? I, personally, have seen people commit this particular abomination in the street, without shame. Where are the mighty moralists? Shouldn't our children be protected from such wantan displays of immorality?
The word of God:
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. either shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing. -- Deuteronomy 7:25-26
Wow. Sounds like we're required to take a pick-ax to any and all crucifixes and statues of Jesus, doesn't it? Or at the very least, we're required to support politicians who pledge to do it for us. God wants us to vote for the secularists! Or, at the very least, it means that we're prohibited from collecting African and Asian religious art. Yet, our immoral government continues to fund museums, and immoral Americans continue to flock to them in large numbers. Per the Torah, they might as well be attending a club where the male sex acts are live, and on stage.
The word of God:
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. -Deuteronomy 18:11-13
This ones tough, because it means lots and lots of Hasidic Rabbis will have to go, together with faith healers, fortune tellers and psychics. Oh, well. It’s hard to be a Jew.
The word of God:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. --Deuteronomy 22:5
So, per the Torah a woman in pants is morally equivalent to a sodomist. And to think the president's own wife frequently commits this particular act of immorality in full view of the children.
The word of God:
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Furthermore, a guy who takes back his divorced wife after she marries (and divorces) someone else is also the moral equivalent of a sodomist. Wow. We sure do have a lot of work to do, if we're going to make this country moral.
The word of God:
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. -Deuteronomy 25:15-17
Enron, anyone? Tom Delay? Oh, I know, the GOP-Jew-excuse: They support Israel, so not only do we need to look the other way, we need to SUPPORT these people who, per the Torah, are the moral equivlent of sodomists.
To sum up: It's ludicrous to use the verse about sodomy being an abomination as yuor reason for supporting politicians who wish to afflict and torment gays, unless you take the same view of all the other types of people the Torah puts in the same category.
Unfortunately, most GOP-Jews single out gays, and sit shiva when the government considers extending equal protection to gays, while all the other abominations are ignored. What's the reason for this cognitive dissonance? Are they ignorant of what the Torah says, anti-gay bigots, hypocrites, or lacking critical-thinking skills? (Personally, I think that last reason is why so many of them became GOP-supporters in the first place.)
Abominations
E X A M P L E S
The word of God:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: -Leviticus 11:10
Nonetheless, GOP-Jews are pleased to tolerate Red Lobster, Captain Jack and the sea-food section at Pathmark. They also raise no objections when the government provides those companies with licenses, permits, subsidies, tax breaks, and all of the other benefits the non-abominable businesses receive. Where's the outrage?
The word of God:
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. -Leviticus 11:10
According to GOP-Jew logic, isn't our culture "celebrating" an abomination if it permits people to eat insects? I, personally, have seen people commit this particular abomination in the street, without shame. Where are the mighty moralists? Shouldn't our children be protected from such wantan displays of immorality?
The word of God:
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. either shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing. -- Deuteronomy 7:25-26
Wow. Sounds like we're required to take a pick-ax to any and all crucifixes and statues of Jesus, doesn't it? Or at the very least, we're required to support politicians who pledge to do it for us. God wants us to vote for the secularists! Or, at the very least, it means that we're prohibited from collecting African and Asian religious art. Yet, our immoral government continues to fund museums, and immoral Americans continue to flock to them in large numbers. Per the Torah, they might as well be attending a club where the male sex acts are live, and on stage.
The word of God:
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. -Deuteronomy 18:11-13
This ones tough, because it means lots and lots of Hasidic Rabbis will have to go, together with faith healers, fortune tellers and psychics. Oh, well. It’s hard to be a Jew.
The word of God:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. --Deuteronomy 22:5
So, per the Torah a woman in pants is morally equivalent to a sodomist. And to think the president's own wife frequently commits this particular act of immorality in full view of the children.
The word of God:
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Furthermore, a guy who takes back his divorced wife after she marries (and divorces) someone else is also the moral equivalent of a sodomist. Wow. We sure do have a lot of work to do, if we're going to make this country moral.
The word of God:
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. -Deuteronomy 25:15-17
Enron, anyone? Tom Delay? Oh, I know, the GOP-Jew-excuse: They support Israel, so not only do we need to look the other way, we need to SUPPORT these people who, per the Torah, are the moral equivlent of sodomists.
To sum up: It's ludicrous to use the verse about sodomy being an abomination as yuor reason for supporting politicians who wish to afflict and torment gays, unless you take the same view of all the other types of people the Torah puts in the same category.
Unfortunately, most GOP-Jews single out gays, and sit shiva when the government considers extending equal protection to gays, while all the other abominations are ignored. What's the reason for this cognitive dissonance? Are they ignorant of what the Torah says, anti-gay bigots, hypocrites, or lacking critical-thinking skills? (Personally, I think that last reason is why so many of them became GOP-supporters in the first place.)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Chapter III
A guest post by TikunOlam (hey DB - do I really still need to call myself a guest here?)
If you are late to the story - feel free to first read Chapter I and Chapter II
So I left off at the end of Chapter II letting you know that by the time I was in my early twenties I met a man who became the reason I never dated non-Jewish men, intermarried or ran away to some far away place. This man, of course, is my better half - my husband. He was one of those “kindred” spirits I referred to in the last chapter, only he was, and is, the most kindred spirit of them all. My husband comes from a very similar background to me and at his own pace and in his own time found himself on the same religious path as me. His experience was more gradual and less angst ridden. His journey out of Orthodoxy started before mine, had much less emotional drama to it and did not seem to leave him feeling quite as lost or disconnected. Different personalities I guess.
Before we got married we had many talks about what role religion would play in our lives and in the lives of the children we hoped to have one day. We made a deal that we continue to have in place to this day. The deal is that one could never pull the other one further from religious life than they wanted to be. When it came to religious decisions for our family, the more “religious” one would always win (can you guess which one comes out the winner most often?).
So now I was no longer a single person whose decisions only affected herself. I was part of a partnership – one I had full heartedly and gladly made a commitment to for the rest of my life. I have known of some couples that have been torn apart over religious incompatibility. Fortunately, though we were still quite young when we got married, by the time we began our lives as a couple we had both come to some solid conclusions as to what we wanted our futures to look like. We had found a system to negotiate religious decisions in our marriage that worked and we have always continued to grow together. I don’t think we have ever had a real argument about religious observance. We have had our share of debates on topics such as where to send our children to school, which is related to our sometimes differing religious priorities, but we have managed to stay on the same page with regards to our family's level of observance.
The first leg of our marriage was spent living amongst Orthodox Jews – many with whom I had grown up. In fact, we lived in an apartment building together with many people we already knew from our neighborhoods, year in Israel, college, youth groups and camps. Sometimes it felt like we were living in a YU dorm for young married people. It was nice having that sense of community – especially as a newly married couple and later after having a first child. Shabbat meals and going to shul made making “couple” friends easier and therefore the transition to married life easier as well. So we did the OJ shul going for a while and the Shabbat meals for a while. This lasted until we began to have more and more trouble feeling comfortable at the shul and observing Shabbat as a skeptic and a non-believer. We eventually stopped going to shul altogether. We gradually stopped inviting people for Shabbat meals as we knew that if they knew our level of observance they may not be comfortable eating in our home. We started branching out and making friends outside of the Orthodox crew which had become easier, as by this time we were parents. We were able to meet lots of great couples through the daycare our son attended while I was in school and work.
After completing graduate school I became very itchy to leave the neighborhood. I couldn’t stand worrying about finding a “Shabbat getaway spot” for our car anymore, not being able to host Shabbat meals any longer or being upset about being gossiped about by the OJs around me if they happened to walk by a diner with us inside or "caught" us taking the elevator on Shabbat. So we started to think about where to settle with our now family of four. We knew remaining Orthoprax, or even on the the very outer fringes of an MO community, as a skeptic and a non-believer, was not an option for us as a permanent plan. Coming up with a new plan for our family became the next challenge.
Coming up: Fourth -and final chapter I think - on how we didn’t end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.
If you are late to the story - feel free to first read Chapter I and Chapter II
So I left off at the end of Chapter II letting you know that by the time I was in my early twenties I met a man who became the reason I never dated non-Jewish men, intermarried or ran away to some far away place. This man, of course, is my better half - my husband. He was one of those “kindred” spirits I referred to in the last chapter, only he was, and is, the most kindred spirit of them all. My husband comes from a very similar background to me and at his own pace and in his own time found himself on the same religious path as me. His experience was more gradual and less angst ridden. His journey out of Orthodoxy started before mine, had much less emotional drama to it and did not seem to leave him feeling quite as lost or disconnected. Different personalities I guess.
Before we got married we had many talks about what role religion would play in our lives and in the lives of the children we hoped to have one day. We made a deal that we continue to have in place to this day. The deal is that one could never pull the other one further from religious life than they wanted to be. When it came to religious decisions for our family, the more “religious” one would always win (can you guess which one comes out the winner most often?).
So now I was no longer a single person whose decisions only affected herself. I was part of a partnership – one I had full heartedly and gladly made a commitment to for the rest of my life. I have known of some couples that have been torn apart over religious incompatibility. Fortunately, though we were still quite young when we got married, by the time we began our lives as a couple we had both come to some solid conclusions as to what we wanted our futures to look like. We had found a system to negotiate religious decisions in our marriage that worked and we have always continued to grow together. I don’t think we have ever had a real argument about religious observance. We have had our share of debates on topics such as where to send our children to school, which is related to our sometimes differing religious priorities, but we have managed to stay on the same page with regards to our family's level of observance.
The first leg of our marriage was spent living amongst Orthodox Jews – many with whom I had grown up. In fact, we lived in an apartment building together with many people we already knew from our neighborhoods, year in Israel, college, youth groups and camps. Sometimes it felt like we were living in a YU dorm for young married people. It was nice having that sense of community – especially as a newly married couple and later after having a first child. Shabbat meals and going to shul made making “couple” friends easier and therefore the transition to married life easier as well. So we did the OJ shul going for a while and the Shabbat meals for a while. This lasted until we began to have more and more trouble feeling comfortable at the shul and observing Shabbat as a skeptic and a non-believer. We eventually stopped going to shul altogether. We gradually stopped inviting people for Shabbat meals as we knew that if they knew our level of observance they may not be comfortable eating in our home. We started branching out and making friends outside of the Orthodox crew which had become easier, as by this time we were parents. We were able to meet lots of great couples through the daycare our son attended while I was in school and work.
After completing graduate school I became very itchy to leave the neighborhood. I couldn’t stand worrying about finding a “Shabbat getaway spot” for our car anymore, not being able to host Shabbat meals any longer or being upset about being gossiped about by the OJs around me if they happened to walk by a diner with us inside or "caught" us taking the elevator on Shabbat. So we started to think about where to settle with our now family of four. We knew remaining Orthoprax, or even on the the very outer fringes of an MO community, as a skeptic and a non-believer, was not an option for us as a permanent plan. Coming up with a new plan for our family became the next challenge.
Coming up: Fourth -and final chapter I think - on how we didn’t end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Why the Meron pilgrimage is an argument in favor of calling women for aliyot
Tonight, tens of thousands of Haredim are going to make a pilgrimage to Meron where they will sway in front of bonfires, give their children haircuts, and sing hymns honoring Bar Yochai. Beloved thought it may be, this ritual is brand new. Scholars believe the trip to Meron is imitative of a Muslim practice that was incorporated into Judaism by way of the Mustaribim, a community of 16th century Jews who lived in the Holy Land and embraced some Arab customs.
Today, of course, bonfires and haircuts are mainstream Jewish customs. Why was it accepted? What made it spread so rapidly? Well, it seems obvious to me that this could have only occured because the Meron ritual filled some sort of gap in the spiritual life of those who chose to accept it.
In 2008 some Jewish women also feel a gap in their spiritual lives, but instead of imitating Arabs, they are imitating Jewish men. My question to those who would berate women for attempting to find spiritual fulfilment the only way they know how -by copying the only things they see - is this: How do you justify yourselves? If Meron (and countless other rituals and observances) could be taken from other cultures and added for the sake of pleasing men, what is the justification for continuing to frustrate women?
Anticipated answers:
(1) It's osur! Well not, not really. There are countless examples of things women can do, per halacha:
- Calling a woman to the Torah, for example, is only osur for the sake of the congregation's honor. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and the case can be made that the congregation's honor is no longer offended when a woman is called to the Torah.
- The Mishna Brurah, who was no egalitarian fanatic, rules that women are required to make a zimun when three of them eat together, yet women generally are not told to do this. Why not?
- There's never any objection when women wish to say Tehillim together, so why are they often prevented from davening together?
- Woman are required to daven at least once per day, and some authorities say the requirement is to pray twice. Why isn't this taught/encouraged? Why is the focus on baking challah, and not on fulfilling a biblical demand? Isn't it possible that women wouldn't be copying men in ways that make the authorities nervous, if they were instead taught/allowed to do things that are permitted and/or required?
(2) You can't update the religion! Ok, so let's eliminate Chanuka, Purim, Meron, Upshirin, Av Harachamin, Pruzbul, the Diaspora's extra day of Yom Tov, Hasidut, Nusach Sfard, tefillah, and more. Why are some updates ok, and others unacceptable? Anyway, allowing/encouraging women to do any of the things listed above aren't updates, in that they were never disallowed.
More, as it occurs to me.
Today, of course, bonfires and haircuts are mainstream Jewish customs. Why was it accepted? What made it spread so rapidly? Well, it seems obvious to me that this could have only occured because the Meron ritual filled some sort of gap in the spiritual life of those who chose to accept it.
In 2008 some Jewish women also feel a gap in their spiritual lives, but instead of imitating Arabs, they are imitating Jewish men. My question to those who would berate women for attempting to find spiritual fulfilment the only way they know how -by copying the only things they see - is this: How do you justify yourselves? If Meron (and countless other rituals and observances) could be taken from other cultures and added for the sake of pleasing men, what is the justification for continuing to frustrate women?
Anticipated answers:
(1) It's osur! Well not, not really. There are countless examples of things women can do, per halacha:
- Calling a woman to the Torah, for example, is only osur for the sake of the congregation's honor. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and the case can be made that the congregation's honor is no longer offended when a woman is called to the Torah.
- The Mishna Brurah, who was no egalitarian fanatic, rules that women are required to make a zimun when three of them eat together, yet women generally are not told to do this. Why not?
- There's never any objection when women wish to say Tehillim together, so why are they often prevented from davening together?
- Woman are required to daven at least once per day, and some authorities say the requirement is to pray twice. Why isn't this taught/encouraged? Why is the focus on baking challah, and not on fulfilling a biblical demand? Isn't it possible that women wouldn't be copying men in ways that make the authorities nervous, if they were instead taught/allowed to do things that are permitted and/or required?
(2) You can't update the religion! Ok, so let's eliminate Chanuka, Purim, Meron, Upshirin, Av Harachamin, Pruzbul, the Diaspora's extra day of Yom Tov, Hasidut, Nusach Sfard, tefillah, and more. Why are some updates ok, and others unacceptable? Anyway, allowing/encouraging women to do any of the things listed above aren't updates, in that they were never disallowed.
More, as it occurs to me.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Does America get a bum rap?
We know lots of American Jews left Judaism in the pre-war years but is it right to blame this on America? I am not sure. First, the "dignified orthodox" lived in America, yet managed to stay orthodox over many generations, keeping their children and their grandchildren, and even their great-grandchildren in the fold. The group that left Judaism soon after arriving here were Eastern Europeans, but huge numbers of them dropped out while they were still in Europe where legions of EE Jews became communists, or socialists, or anarchists, or Zionists, etc.
This didn't happen in Germany. In Germany, Jews looked for ways to change Judaism, and they dropped observances (for both negative and positive reasons) but they (generally) didn't drop the religion (At first) (Abandonment of the religion was often the outcome of reform, but never the original intention).
Only in Eastern Europe (I think) did people drop out in huge numbers, a phenomenon that was replicated in America, but perhaps shouldn't be blamed on it.
NB:
In the 19th century German Jews attempted to reform Judaism, whereas Eastern European Jews dropped out. What accounts for the two difference responses?
This didn't happen in Germany. In Germany, Jews looked for ways to change Judaism, and they dropped observances (for both negative and positive reasons) but they (generally) didn't drop the religion (At first) (Abandonment of the religion was often the outcome of reform, but never the original intention).
Only in Eastern Europe (I think) did people drop out in huge numbers, a phenomenon that was replicated in America, but perhaps shouldn't be blamed on it.
NB:
In the 19th century German Jews attempted to reform Judaism, whereas Eastern European Jews dropped out. What accounts for the two difference responses?
Where are you from?
In my long, hopefully non-boring post, on Judaism in pre-war America I discuss three Jewish factions that were active here before WWII: The American reformers, who were largely German and the descendants of Germans; the Eastern Europeans who came from Russia and Poland and places like it; and the "dignified Orthodox" who followed halacha, but kept customs and practiced a Judaism that looked very different from the sort of Judaism the Eastern Europeans brought here. After the war, Hungarians and Romanians came, too.
Where are you from?
I'll go first: My family is entirely descendant from the Eastern Europeans, and all of my grandparents were born in the US of A. (We suspect that one of my American-born grandfathers is himself descendant, at least in part, from the "dignified" Orthodox, but that's speculation based on certain facts, and not a conclusive fact itself.)
Your turn.
Where are you from?
I'll go first: My family is entirely descendant from the Eastern Europeans, and all of my grandparents were born in the US of A. (We suspect that one of my American-born grandfathers is himself descendant, at least in part, from the "dignified" Orthodox, but that's speculation based on certain facts, and not a conclusive fact itself.)
Your turn.
Farenheight 666
Another Guest Post by http://muqata.blogspot.com/Christian Missionaries are a growing problem in Israel, and in the town of Or Yehuda in particular.
Last week, "Jewish Messianic" Christian missionaries canvassed the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, and distributed hundreds of New Testaments and anti-Jewish missionary material -- much of it geared specifically towards children.
In response, Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon organized teams of youngsters to go house to house, collecting the distributed materials, while he drove around in his car and loudspeaker system imploring residents to get rid of the books.
While Aharon continued driving around the city, some of the teenagers gathered all the books, dumped them, and lit a bonfire.
You can predict what happened next.
Israel's media has been having a field day with this "book burning" story, and every radio station has used the quote, "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people"
Haaretz's headline screamed, "Orthodox Jewish youths burn New Testaments in Or Yehuda"
Maariv reported that hundreds of yeshiva students took part in the book-burning...but Aharon told The Associated Press that only a few students were present, and that he was not there when the books were torched.
"Not all of the New Testaments that were collected were burned, but hundreds were," he said.There's a law against missionising to minors in Israel, but the police rarely have the time or manpower to deal with it. So while Mr. Myers wants everyone involved put on trial (for what, I don't know), the Israeli police don't really the address the illegal actions of Myers' clients.
He said he regretted the burning of the books, but called it a commandment to burn materials that urge Jews to convert.
"I certainly don't denounce the burning of the booklets, he said. I denounce those who distributed the booklets."
Calev Myers, an attorney who represents Messianic Jews, or Jews who accept Jesus as their savior, demanded in an interview with Army Radio that all those involved be put on trial. He estimated there were 10,000 Messianic Jews, who are also known as Jews for Jesus, in Israel. (Haaretz)"
Israel's media is so concerned about the actual "book burning," that they willfully ignore the Christian proselytizing towards children. As long as they can repeat over and over "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people" -- that's all that matters.
Personally, I was a lot more bothered when Harry Potter books were burned in New Mexico.
A long, hopefully non-boring post, on Judaism in pre-war America
I've been trying to crank out a post on pre-war American Judaism, based on a book I finished last weekend, but it keeps getting too long, and too complicated for a DovBear post. So allow me to summarize some of the interesting points:
1 - In the years before WWII Reform Judaism was becoming more observant, and looking for ways to incorporate ritual into their theology. For instance, they brought some Hebrew back into the liturgy, began to reconsider the Zionism rejected by the Pittsburgh Platform, and so on. Some speculate that this was done because they were inspired/shamed into doing so by the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who arrived in America between 1890 or so and 1920 or so. There are many anecdotes which support this theory.
2 - JTS was created by Reform Jews who wanted to train American Rabbis who could minister to the newly arrived Eastern Europeans and their children. In the pre-war years, a majority of JTS students were yeshiva graduates, and possessed bachelor degrees from Yeshiva College. JTS, as everyone knows, originally followed Orthodox halacha (in most important matters. The egalitarian innovations, and even the ruling that allowed people to drive to shul on shabbos, came much, much later.)
3 - The Eastern Europeans themselves did all sorts of things to try and bolster religion in their own community. There opened hundreds of shuls, or every size, shape and style. Rabbis, including the first chief Rabbi of New York, were imported from Poland at the community's expense. Yeshivas were established, some of which were expressly designed to create "American Rabbis" who could relate to the next generation. And new organizations were created including the Khilla Kdeosha of New York and the Orthodox Union. As everyone knows, these efforts had mixed results. The yeshivas grew and created Rabbis, and learned lay-people (while also creating students for JTS, though before the war the Eastern Europeans didn't all think JTS was treif, and in many ways it wasn't.) There was also widespread prikas ol, though for the most part this phenomenon affected (some) new immigrants and their children and not the Orthodox communities that were established before the Eastern Europeans arrived.
Some speculate that the newly arrived Eastern Europeans went OTD faster than those Jews who were already here because American life offered too many challenges, but a better explanation (cribbed from the book) is this: The school system in Eastern Europe didn't prepare people to exist in the world. It prepared them to exist in the shtetle. Boys were taught HOW to do things (ie: how to read an translate Talmud; how to keep shabbos; how to keep kashrus; etc) and not why these things were done. (Girls were taught almost nothing at all) When the graduates of this system arrived in America they couldn't explain to themselves why Shabbos and Kashrus were necessary, so as their new lives began to interfere the old observances were dropped. As the book notes, the Eastern Europeans came to America with knowledge that was very broad, but very shallow. Of course, the reasons for the prikas ol are many and complicated but what the statistics show is that Eastern Europeans dropped observances much more rapidly and in much greater numbers than others did.
4 - When the Hasidim began to arrive in the late 40s and early 50s they had some success recruiting from among the more observant Eastern Europeans. According to the book, Williamsburg, at that time, was a slum inhabited by Eastern Europeans who were either too poor to leave, or who wanted the comfort and convience of the schools and kosher food which were readily available. (As the Eastern Europeans became established they left slums like Williamsburg and Lower East Side. According to the book, they often ended up in neighborhoods that were heavily Jewish, but not nearly as homogenous as the neighborhoods they left behind. In Williamsburg and the Lower East Side you could be "Jewish" without actually keeping commandments. In the "areas of second settlement" --ie. the places they went nect - "being Jewish" required a little more work; in some areas the challenge was met with schools and shuls and to varying degrees of success. Schools like Shulamith and HILI, and the Yeshiva of Flatbush are the legacies of those efforts) When the Hasidim arrived, after the war, in places like Williamsburg, the Jews who remained there tended to gravitate toward the rebbas and shteibels, and for any number of reasons. The book speculates that this occurred because Judaism is primarily about rituals and practices, not cold belief, so anyone sincerely interested in Judaism seeks to emulate practices that seem more authentic. Certainly, this would also explain (see above #1) why American Reform Jews could be influenced by the Eastern European example. It also explains why Reform Judaism originally attempted to update Judaism. See below #5.
5 - According to the book, Reform Judaism was at first a positive theology. The objective wasn't to drop inconvenient rituals and to become more like the gentiles, but to fix and restore Judaism by eliminating what could be judged "inauthentic" superstitions. (in some later iterations Reform Judaism certainly became a negative movement seeking to drop practices for no good reason, but that came later.) American reformers saw the prophets, with their protests against empty ritual and demands for justice, as being more legitimate than what came later and worked to restructure Judaism along more humanistic lines. Not coincidentally, this reflected the spirit of the times. Liberal religion was on the rise in 19th century America, and Jews rethought and reworked their religion in the same way that Christians were [*] and dropped almost all the rituals on the grounds they they were inauthentic and illegitimate superstition. Of course, we know how the story ends: Judaism without practice is nothing at all (see above) and the children of these reformers saw no reason to remain Jews. Many embraced humanism, and married non-Jews. In fact, a theology of the time argued that it was perfectly okay for Jews to intermarry because, the mission of the Jewish people having been fulfilled, there was no reason for us to remain separate as a nation. As noted above, after reaching this nadir around the time of the Pittsbugh Platform, reform Judaism began to recognize the value of ritual.
Ok - that's all for now. More later.
----------
[*]Sharper knives in the drawer have realized that (some) 21st century Jews are doing the same thing, only, reflecting the spirit of OUR time, they are modifying Judaism in ways that make it more consistent with fundamentalist religion.
1 - In the years before WWII Reform Judaism was becoming more observant, and looking for ways to incorporate ritual into their theology. For instance, they brought some Hebrew back into the liturgy, began to reconsider the Zionism rejected by the Pittsburgh Platform, and so on. Some speculate that this was done because they were inspired/shamed into doing so by the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who arrived in America between 1890 or so and 1920 or so. There are many anecdotes which support this theory.
2 - JTS was created by Reform Jews who wanted to train American Rabbis who could minister to the newly arrived Eastern Europeans and their children. In the pre-war years, a majority of JTS students were yeshiva graduates, and possessed bachelor degrees from Yeshiva College. JTS, as everyone knows, originally followed Orthodox halacha (in most important matters. The egalitarian innovations, and even the ruling that allowed people to drive to shul on shabbos, came much, much later.)
3 - The Eastern Europeans themselves did all sorts of things to try and bolster religion in their own community. There opened hundreds of shuls, or every size, shape and style. Rabbis, including the first chief Rabbi of New York, were imported from Poland at the community's expense. Yeshivas were established, some of which were expressly designed to create "American Rabbis" who could relate to the next generation. And new organizations were created including the Khilla Kdeosha of New York and the Orthodox Union. As everyone knows, these efforts had mixed results. The yeshivas grew and created Rabbis, and learned lay-people (while also creating students for JTS, though before the war the Eastern Europeans didn't all think JTS was treif, and in many ways it wasn't.) There was also widespread prikas ol, though for the most part this phenomenon affected (some) new immigrants and their children and not the Orthodox communities that were established before the Eastern Europeans arrived.
Some speculate that the newly arrived Eastern Europeans went OTD faster than those Jews who were already here because American life offered too many challenges, but a better explanation (cribbed from the book) is this: The school system in Eastern Europe didn't prepare people to exist in the world. It prepared them to exist in the shtetle. Boys were taught HOW to do things (ie: how to read an translate Talmud; how to keep shabbos; how to keep kashrus; etc) and not why these things were done. (Girls were taught almost nothing at all) When the graduates of this system arrived in America they couldn't explain to themselves why Shabbos and Kashrus were necessary, so as their new lives began to interfere the old observances were dropped. As the book notes, the Eastern Europeans came to America with knowledge that was very broad, but very shallow. Of course, the reasons for the prikas ol are many and complicated but what the statistics show is that Eastern Europeans dropped observances much more rapidly and in much greater numbers than others did.
4 - When the Hasidim began to arrive in the late 40s and early 50s they had some success recruiting from among the more observant Eastern Europeans. According to the book, Williamsburg, at that time, was a slum inhabited by Eastern Europeans who were either too poor to leave, or who wanted the comfort and convience of the schools and kosher food which were readily available. (As the Eastern Europeans became established they left slums like Williamsburg and Lower East Side. According to the book, they often ended up in neighborhoods that were heavily Jewish, but not nearly as homogenous as the neighborhoods they left behind. In Williamsburg and the Lower East Side you could be "Jewish" without actually keeping commandments. In the "areas of second settlement" --ie. the places they went nect - "being Jewish" required a little more work; in some areas the challenge was met with schools and shuls and to varying degrees of success. Schools like Shulamith and HILI, and the Yeshiva of Flatbush are the legacies of those efforts) When the Hasidim arrived, after the war, in places like Williamsburg, the Jews who remained there tended to gravitate toward the rebbas and shteibels, and for any number of reasons. The book speculates that this occurred because Judaism is primarily about rituals and practices, not cold belief, so anyone sincerely interested in Judaism seeks to emulate practices that seem more authentic. Certainly, this would also explain (see above #1) why American Reform Jews could be influenced by the Eastern European example. It also explains why Reform Judaism originally attempted to update Judaism. See below #5.
5 - According to the book, Reform Judaism was at first a positive theology. The objective wasn't to drop inconvenient rituals and to become more like the gentiles, but to fix and restore Judaism by eliminating what could be judged "inauthentic" superstitions. (in some later iterations Reform Judaism certainly became a negative movement seeking to drop practices for no good reason, but that came later.) American reformers saw the prophets, with their protests against empty ritual and demands for justice, as being more legitimate than what came later and worked to restructure Judaism along more humanistic lines. Not coincidentally, this reflected the spirit of the times. Liberal religion was on the rise in 19th century America, and Jews rethought and reworked their religion in the same way that Christians were [*] and dropped almost all the rituals on the grounds they they were inauthentic and illegitimate superstition. Of course, we know how the story ends: Judaism without practice is nothing at all (see above) and the children of these reformers saw no reason to remain Jews. Many embraced humanism, and married non-Jews. In fact, a theology of the time argued that it was perfectly okay for Jews to intermarry because, the mission of the Jewish people having been fulfilled, there was no reason for us to remain separate as a nation. As noted above, after reaching this nadir around the time of the Pittsbugh Platform, reform Judaism began to recognize the value of ritual.
Ok - that's all for now. More later.
----------
[*]Sharper knives in the drawer have realized that (some) 21st century Jews are doing the same thing, only, reflecting the spirit of OUR time, they are modifying Judaism in ways that make it more consistent with fundamentalist religion.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The IDF Chief Rabbi responds to allegations
A Guest Post by Rafi G.
(cross posted from LII)
About a week ago the story broke that the Chief Rabbi of the IDF had supposedly desecrated the holiday of Pesach (the story actually said he desecrated the shabbos, but alert readers pointed out that the timing means it was really the holiday), and the Haredi press had written about it very critically demanding an explanation and his resignation, as they claimed there was no need for him to be there and therefore no need for him to get in the car.
For some reason, Rabbi Ronsky, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, felt it necessary to try to clear his name and provide an explanation. Yesterday he sent a letter to various Rabbis of the IDF in which he provided an explanation for his actions.
He wrote, "The IDF rabbi is an an inseparable part from the fighting unit. Just as he puts himself in danger when he goes out with the unit to the front lines, so too if the unit has to be mobilized on Shabbos, the Rabbi must join the unit."
Ronsky compared the IDF Rabbi to the way the Torah describes the Kohein who was appointed to go out with the people to battle. He writes, "The Kohein would meet the soldiers before they went out to battle, and he would lift their spirits. He would then go out with them to the battle.
The main job of the Unit Rabbi is to raise the morale of the soldiers. Strengthening them in this way is an important job in ensuring their success in battle, for, as is known, assault before an enemy is not natural for a person, and definitely not for our young soldiers. Therefore a Rav who is integrated thoroughly with his unit, who participates and is present during their exercises and their operations, can help them overcome their distress and crises that are charachteristic in these situations."
"The soldier is comparable to a choleh she'yesh bo sakana - a sick man whose life is in danger. Such a person we even bring his family to his bed, because it can help his situation. We find that even Torah decrees would eb waived to bring his family in this situation. How much more so, in this situation, to strengthen the morale of the sodliers - something that will directly affect the success of the operation, that is of invaluable importance."
I guess his classification of the Rabbis role would be a point of debate, but at least he has a reasonable explanation (as I wrote before, that I did not doubt from the start). Even if others do not agree with his opinion, it is not necessarily their place to instruct him how to behave, when he is fully qualified to make such decisions.
(cross posted from LII)
About a week ago the story broke that the Chief Rabbi of the IDF had supposedly desecrated the holiday of Pesach (the story actually said he desecrated the shabbos, but alert readers pointed out that the timing means it was really the holiday), and the Haredi press had written about it very critically demanding an explanation and his resignation, as they claimed there was no need for him to be there and therefore no need for him to get in the car.
For some reason, Rabbi Ronsky, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, felt it necessary to try to clear his name and provide an explanation. Yesterday he sent a letter to various Rabbis of the IDF in which he provided an explanation for his actions.
He wrote, "The IDF rabbi is an an inseparable part from the fighting unit. Just as he puts himself in danger when he goes out with the unit to the front lines, so too if the unit has to be mobilized on Shabbos, the Rabbi must join the unit."
Ronsky compared the IDF Rabbi to the way the Torah describes the Kohein who was appointed to go out with the people to battle. He writes, "The Kohein would meet the soldiers before they went out to battle, and he would lift their spirits. He would then go out with them to the battle.
The main job of the Unit Rabbi is to raise the morale of the soldiers. Strengthening them in this way is an important job in ensuring their success in battle, for, as is known, assault before an enemy is not natural for a person, and definitely not for our young soldiers. Therefore a Rav who is integrated thoroughly with his unit, who participates and is present during their exercises and their operations, can help them overcome their distress and crises that are charachteristic in these situations."
"The soldier is comparable to a choleh she'yesh bo sakana - a sick man whose life is in danger. Such a person we even bring his family to his bed, because it can help his situation. We find that even Torah decrees would eb waived to bring his family in this situation. How much more so, in this situation, to strengthen the morale of the sodliers - something that will directly affect the success of the operation, that is of invaluable importance."
I guess his classification of the Rabbis role would be a point of debate, but at least he has a reasonable explanation (as I wrote before, that I did not doubt from the start). Even if others do not agree with his opinion, it is not necessarily their place to instruct him how to behave, when he is fully qualified to make such decisions.
Refuah Shlayma Senator Kennedy
The reprehensible human beings who make the Yeshiva World go round are dancing on poor Ed Kennedy's grave -- and he's not even dead yet.
Of special interest is the regurgitated nonesense about the Kennedy family curse. As the story goes [some famous rabbi*] put a curse on Old Joe Kennedy because [of something he did to offend the Rabbi**] As a result, bad things happen to the Kennedys -- though to date they've remained plenty rich, plenty powerful and plenty good-looking.
Of course the people who gleefully spread that story don't ever seem distressed by the fact that (a) curses don't work; (b) it's a very petty Rabbi indeed who'd curse a whole generation of Kennedys becuase of something their father did; and (c) the story basicly accuses the Rabbi, whoever he was, of commiting multiple homocides.
Ah well. That's the Yeshiva World for you. Shtark, but dumb as dirt.
--------------
Kasha for the learned mystics among us: Why was it okay for that Rabbi to murder the offspring of someone who had offended him; also can the murder only be done via magic? Because, hey, people offend me all the time and if murdering their children is an option, that's information I should have.
--------------
* Who the Rabbi was varies depending on who is regurgitating the nonesense. At Yeshiva World you'll see its attributed to several different people.
** What Old Joe allegedly did also varies.
Of special interest is the regurgitated nonesense about the Kennedy family curse. As the story goes [some famous rabbi*] put a curse on Old Joe Kennedy because [of something he did to offend the Rabbi**] As a result, bad things happen to the Kennedys -- though to date they've remained plenty rich, plenty powerful and plenty good-looking.
Of course the people who gleefully spread that story don't ever seem distressed by the fact that (a) curses don't work; (b) it's a very petty Rabbi indeed who'd curse a whole generation of Kennedys becuase of something their father did; and (c) the story basicly accuses the Rabbi, whoever he was, of commiting multiple homocides.
Ah well. That's the Yeshiva World for you. Shtark, but dumb as dirt.
--------------
Kasha for the learned mystics among us: Why was it okay for that Rabbi to murder the offspring of someone who had offended him; also can the murder only be done via magic? Because, hey, people offend me all the time and if murdering their children is an option, that's information I should have.
--------------
* Who the Rabbi was varies depending on who is regurgitating the nonesense. At Yeshiva World you'll see its attributed to several different people.
** What Old Joe allegedly did also varies.
Zip it Zweibel
Here's Dovid Zweibel, the Agudah muckety-muck, misunderstanding and/or misconstruing the California court's ruling on SSMs, as reported by the Jerusalem Post:
Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudath Israel's executive vice president for government and public affairs, said the Supreme Court decision "vilifies communities like ours and the countless other Americans who consider the institution of marriage in its traditional form to be the foundation not only of the family but of civilized society."
Vilifies us how? The courts of this country also allow people to worship idols, a practice that, according to the Torah, also undermines the family, civilized society, etc. Does the first amendment to the US Constitution "vilify" us, too?
Anyway, Zweibel should zip it, because Jews invite their own destruction when they argue against extending the liberties we enjoy to other groups. As Steven Pinker put it in another context: "The price of freedom is tolerating behavior by others that may be undignified [DB: or immoral, or otherwise objectionable] by our own lights. I would be happy if Britney Spears and "American Idol" would go away, [DB: and Zwiebel, no doubt, would turn cartwheels if the sodomites disappeared] but I put up with them in return for not having to worry about being arrested by the [circumcision] police. This trade-off is very much in America's DNA and is one of its great contributions to civilization: my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty."
NB: Men like Zweibel insist that they are not bigots. They insist that their objections to SSMs are principled, and rooted in a sincere understanding of the Jewish religion. I think they are lying -- if not to us, then to themselves. If Zweibel cared one drop about the Torah, and its teachings, he'd object to foreign religions with the same ferocity with which he objects to SSMs. He doesn't and I have no charitable explanation for the double standard.
The Closing of Volozhin; Jewish Urban Legend?
A Guest Post by Jameel. Cross-posted to The Muqata
It's impossible to traverse chareidi circles without hearing that the famous Volozhin Yeshiva was closed by its Rosh Yeshiva, the "Netziv" (Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין) -- because he would rather close the Yeshiva than for his students go to University and study secular subjects. This mantra is often repeated as a primary reason to avoid Yeshiva University, any combination of Yeshiva and College studies, or secular studies in general.
In May 1988, looking for a donation, the Lakewood Cheder School sent me a copy of the book, "My Uncle the Netziv" -- written by R' Baruch HaLevi Epstein (author of the Torah Temima) and nephew of the Netziv. The book was adapted into English by R' Moshe Dombey and under the general editorship of Artscroll Mesorah Rabbis and Publishers Nosson Sherman and Meir Zlotowitz. The book's jacket states, "This is the sort of book that cannot -- and should not -- be put down."
I enjoyed the book at the time, and found the life and times of the Netziv to be an interesting read. A few months later the Lakewood Cheder School sent me a bizarre letter (pictured at left) in which they sincerely apologized for sending me such an offensive book. They insisted the book not be read -- and they even offered to refund any donation I may have sent them.
Why was the book recalled and banned? What was so terrible in the book that caused such a radical reaction from Lakewood? The recall letter was rather vague about what was wrong with the book, but as a teenager I realized if they were recalling the book, it was worth keeping.
There are a few possibilities for the ban, but in my opinion there are 2 primary reasons.
1. Background into the closing of Volozhin
2. Women and Learning. (I wont address this point in this post).
Concerning "worldliness" of the students of Volozhin, and the value of secular education at Volozhin, R' Epstein writes:
So what did college have to do with the closing of the Yeshiva? Assuming we accept the premise that the yeshiva was indeed closed over something connected to "secular studies", R' Epstein explains what was actually proposed, which caused his uncle to close the yeshiva.
R' Epstein's version of the story leaves little room for misinterpretation. The Netziv was not anti-secular studies, the students of Volozhin studied (at least) mathematics and Russian within the scope of the Volozhin curriculum, and the closing of the yeshiva was due to the outrageous order reducing yeshiva studies to a bare minimum (or none), with secular studies taking up the vast majority of the students' time.
While the majority of this posting is based on the actual book "My Uncle the Netziv", I came across some additional sources and good additional reading material as well:
Sources:
My Uncle the Netziv, Chapter 13, "An Act of Satan", pages 206-209.
Additional Reading:
Founding (1803) and Closure (1892) of Yeshivat Etz Hayyim of Volozhin. Michtavim Blog, Menachem Butler
"Haskalah, Secular Studies, and the close of Yeshiva of Volozhin in 1892", YU Torah, by Dr. Jacob J, Schachter
In closing, I must quote from Menachem Butler's post about a newly researched twist on the entire story...
Professor Shaul Stampfer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem discusses "The Closing of the Yeshiva of Volozhin" [Hebrew], in his Hebrew-University-dissertation-turned-volume, Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita'it be-Hithavutah (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1st ed., 1995; 2nd ed., 2005), 208-250, with an appendix to chapter eight published in the updated (2005) edition on pages 251-266, including a half-dozen never-before-published correspondences from newly available sources from Russian government archives (and he reprints a [Russian] document on page 253), in Hebrew translation, pointing that the closure was related to "in-fighting" (my wording) amongst the administration of Yeshivat Etz Hayyim, rather than simply a disagreement over the government inclusion of secular studies into the institutional curriculum.
It's impossible to traverse chareidi circles without hearing that the famous Volozhin Yeshiva was closed by its Rosh Yeshiva, the "Netziv" (Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין) -- because he would rather close the Yeshiva than for his students go to University and study secular subjects. This mantra is often repeated as a primary reason to avoid Yeshiva University, any combination of Yeshiva and College studies, or secular studies in general.In May 1988, looking for a donation, the Lakewood Cheder School sent me a copy of the book, "My Uncle the Netziv" -- written by R' Baruch HaLevi Epstein (author of the Torah Temima) and nephew of the Netziv. The book was adapted into English by R' Moshe Dombey and under the general editorship of Artscroll Mesorah Rabbis and Publishers Nosson Sherman and Meir Zlotowitz. The book's jacket states, "This is the sort of book that cannot -- and should not -- be put down."
I enjoyed the book at the time, and found the life and times of the Netziv to be an interesting read. A few months later the Lakewood Cheder School sent me a bizarre letter (pictured at left) in which they sincerely apologized for sending me such an offensive book. They insisted the book not be read -- and they even offered to refund any donation I may have sent them.
Why was the book recalled and banned? What was so terrible in the book that caused such a radical reaction from Lakewood? The recall letter was rather vague about what was wrong with the book, but as a teenager I realized if they were recalling the book, it was worth keeping.
There are a few possibilities for the ban, but in my opinion there are 2 primary reasons.
1. Background into the closing of Volozhin
2. Women and Learning. (I wont address this point in this post).
Concerning "worldliness" of the students of Volozhin, and the value of secular education at Volozhin, R' Epstein writes:
Anyone with eyes in his head could see that the students of Volozhin were quite knowledgeable in secular studies: they took an interest in science, history and geography and knew many languages. In fact, those students who desired to pursue these disciplines succeeded in learning twice as much as any student at a state institution. In Volohzin, Torah and derech eretz walked hand in hand, neither one held captive by the other. It was the special achievement of the Volozhin student that when he left the yeshiva, he was able to converse with any man in any social setting on the highest intellectual plane. The Volohzin student was able to conquer both worlds -- the world of Torah and the world at large. A well-known adage among parents who were trying to best educate their children was, "Do you want your child to develop into a complete Jew, dedicated to Torah and derech eretz? Do you want him to be able to mingle with people and get along in the world? Send him to Volozhin! (page 204)R' Epstein debunks the story that college and Volozhin could not mix, by stating -- in direct contradiction to the chareidi myth -- that the Netziv explicitly agreed to the introduction of secular studies to Volozhin at the 1887 Petersburg Congress, by incorporating the study of mathematics and the Russian language within the framework of the yeshiva program. The amount of time and part of day when these 2 subjects were to be taught was left entirely to the discretion of the Rosh Yeshiva. This continued for 5 full years prior to the yeshiva's closing in 1892. (pages 207, 208)
So what did college have to do with the closing of the Yeshiva? Assuming we accept the premise that the yeshiva was indeed closed over something connected to "secular studies", R' Epstein explains what was actually proposed, which caused his uncle to close the yeshiva.
On the twenty second of October 1891, the Minister of Education certified a system of changes to be established in the Volozhin Yeshiva, four of which struck at its main life-giving arteries and imperiled its existence. They consisted of the following:The point of the maskilim, who pressed the issue in the first place to the Russian government, was to close the yeshiva -- and in the week of Parashat Bo, 1892, the yeshiva was closed.
1. The general studies program shall take place between nine o'clock in the morning and three in the afternoon.
2. There shall be no [yeshiva] studies at night at which time the yeshiva building shall be closed.
3. The entire study program shall be no longer than ten hours per twenty four hour period.
4. The Rosh yeshiva and all the instructors shall possess an educational degree.
The result of all this was that during the winter months no time at all would remain for studying the Talmud. Even in the summer, considering that the general studies program would finish at three in the afternoon followed by lunch, only minimal time would remain for Torah study. The students would also be exhausted from 5 or 6 hours of general studies, and thus the best hours of the day would have been wasted.
It is clear that these conditions, capped by the impossible demand that every single teacher from the Rosh yeshiva down to the instructor of the lowest shiur, have a degree, left my uncle with very little choice. "Under these conditions what do I need the yeshiva for and for what does the yeshiva need me? This will no longer be a yeshiva but a school. Aren't there enough schools in this country already? (pages 206-207)
R' Epstein's version of the story leaves little room for misinterpretation. The Netziv was not anti-secular studies, the students of Volozhin studied (at least) mathematics and Russian within the scope of the Volozhin curriculum, and the closing of the yeshiva was due to the outrageous order reducing yeshiva studies to a bare minimum (or none), with secular studies taking up the vast majority of the students' time.
While the majority of this posting is based on the actual book "My Uncle the Netziv", I came across some additional sources and good additional reading material as well:
Sources:
My Uncle the Netziv, Chapter 13, "An Act of Satan", pages 206-209.
Additional Reading:
Founding (1803) and Closure (1892) of Yeshivat Etz Hayyim of Volozhin. Michtavim Blog, Menachem Butler
"Haskalah, Secular Studies, and the close of Yeshiva of Volozhin in 1892", YU Torah, by Dr. Jacob J, Schachter
In closing, I must quote from Menachem Butler's post about a newly researched twist on the entire story...
Professor Shaul Stampfer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem discusses "The Closing of the Yeshiva of Volozhin" [Hebrew], in his Hebrew-University-dissertation-turned-volume, Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita'it be-Hithavutah (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1st ed., 1995; 2nd ed., 2005), 208-250, with an appendix to chapter eight published in the updated (2005) edition on pages 251-266, including a half-dozen never-before-published correspondences from newly available sources from Russian government archives (and he reprints a [Russian] document on page 253), in Hebrew translation, pointing that the closure was related to "in-fighting" (my wording) amongst the administration of Yeshivat Etz Hayyim, rather than simply a disagreement over the government inclusion of secular studies into the institutional curriculum.
