Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta

Chanukah Sameach

2011-12-20T16:09:00.002+02:00

I think I may start a trend of checking in to say hello every Yom Tov.

So, until Purim (perhaps) ...

For the nostalgiac readers I offer my Golden Oldies Chanukah posts:

Fumbling the Ball in the Red Zone

Yefes in the Tents of Shame

Chezkel

Shanna Tova

2011-09-28T02:04:00.000+03:00

To all my loyal readers - and if you are reading this, then you a definitely a very loyal reader - I just want to say that despite my inattention to my blog, I am still around and am still devoted to One Above and Seven Below and to all the Jews in either category!

I just want to wish everybody a Kesiva V'Chasima tova - a year of health, parnassah, and peace and a geulah shleima.

One thought for Rosh HaShanna: Many people have the custom not to do any sins on Rosh HaShanna because the Hebrew word for "sin" - חטא - has the same gematria as the word חטא which means "sin"! (Amazing but true!) וסימנא מילתא היא.

שנה טובה ומתוקה

Weighing Judgment Kilo for Kilo

2011-04-12T01:13:00.004+03:00

I will divulge a secret as to part of the reason that I haven't written many blog posts over the past months.

Though I have stated that I am busier than I had been previously, I had never given out any specifics (except that work picked up). What is a bit more significant is that I have found myself entangled in a very messy Din Torah (nothing to do with my book and thank G-d it's not shalom bayis). And I 've been having the time of my life. Now, instead of writing blog posts in my "spare" time, I am writing letters to dayanim and beligerent lawyers.

Now, there's an old Dale Carnegie rule: when you get stuck with a lemon, make a lemonade. This means that even when you get a bum deal, there is usually some feature you can still cash in on.

In the FAQs section of my book (page 10), I tell the reader that I intend to write a second volume to deal with specific aspects of the Jewish/Chareidi world and one of the items on the agenda was a discussion of Beis Din and Agunah issues. Now we all know that I am far behind schedule in my second book but, to make a lemonade out of a lemon, my recent experiences have taught me more than I thought I would ever know. In fact, they have taught me more than I ever wanted to know. And they have certainly proven to me first hand something I wrote in a previous post: writing about Beis Din cannot be done in a single chapter. It requires a complete book. And what I have learned from my experiences give me more than enough material.

So perhaps there will be a complete book about the workings and failings of a rabbinic Beis Din - even before there is a book 2.

And what inspired me to write about this subject in the midst of the Pesach cleaning I should be doing? It is a story that was just now emailed to me from a dear friend. A story that involves a Din Torah and making a lemonade out of a lemon. And here is the story:

In a quiet shtettle in Poland the town milkman is suddenly approached by the gabbai of the local dayan. He is summoned to a Din Torah the upcoming Tuesday.

A Din Torah? The milkman knows that he has always been a very straightforward and honest person and has absolutely no desire to benefit from ill-gotten gains. Who could possibly want to call him for a Din Torah?

Well, the town baker was one of his customers and would purchase butter and cheese for his dairy paistries. He had an accurate scale in his facility and when he brought back his butter and cheese order, he would doublecheck the chunks that were supposed to weigh a kilo.

They never weighed a full kilo. Someimes 900 grams sometimes 950. He even had an occasion where the chunk only weighed 800 grams but never did it weigh a full kilo.

The baker was incensed. He approached the village dayan and told him that not only was the milkman cheating him but he was very likely cheating everybody in the town. We must put an end to this. This scoundrel must be brought to justice!

And so, the baker filed a claim in the Beis Din and the milkman was summoned to appear. And appear he did. Albeit a bit nervous and confused.

"Do you have a reliable scale in your workshop?" he was asked by the dayan.

"No, I do not."

"Then how do you ascertain that the chunks of butter that you deliver to the baker weigh a full kilo?"

"Oh, that's simple. I don't have a scale but I do have a simple balance. When the baker comes, he brings me my bread order. So I take a full loaf of fresh bread which he tells me weighs a kilo - (and he has a reliable scale) - and I put it on one side of the balance and I weigh out the butter on the other side. I always make sure that my butter slightly outweighs the bread."

The dayan took one quick glance at the baker and immediately dismissed the case as the baker's face turned as white as the butter.

So remember:

כל הפוסל במומו פוסל

and what's more:

אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו ...שאולי באמת כבר הגעת למקומו

Common Sense of a High Order- a book review

2011-03-07T14:35:00.027+02:00

Nonsense of a High Order by Rabbi Moshe Averick

Emunah - Belief in G-d.

It is everything.

I wrote as much in one of the (9) most fundamental chapters in my book. The one that is entitled Getting to the Heart of the Matter. For it truly is the heart of the matter.

To briefly summarize, I expounded on the Maharsha's explanation on a fundamental chazal at the end of Gemara Makkos. This chazal is the primary Talmudic source that our Mosaic traditon is composed of 613 mitzvot. But the gemara does something strange.

After informing us that the proper quantity of mitzvot is 613, the gemara adds on that King David came along and reduced the number to eleven. Then came his great grandson Yishaya and reduced the number to six. Comes the prophet Michah and further reduces it to three. Back comes Yeshaya to reduce it to two, and finally comes the prophet Habakuk and he reduces it to just one - וצדיק באמונתו יחיה .

Just one.

EMUNAH!

The Maharsha explains that all the 613 mitzvot are divided into 2 categories: 248 positive ones and 365 negative ones. At the head of the 248 positive ones is the King commandment: Anochi Hashem Elokecha. At the head of the 365 negative ones is the Queen commandment: Lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acherim. All of the mitzvot are "servants" of the King and Queen so, in effect, there are only 2 mitzvos: Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

But these two mitzvot themselves are really only conveying one two-sided idea: Anochi = believe in Me and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha = do not believe in any power but Me. Or, in other words - have complete unequivocal EMUNAH in HKBH.

And this is what the prophet Habakuk said: וצדיק באמונתו יחיה .

This is Kol HaTorah Kula (which I can type while standing on one foot)!

So our entire challenge in life is our Emunah. And it is no small sack of potatoes. In our exothermic world of void and chaos which is rapidly expanding into more void and chaos, our biggest challenges are our tests of Emunah. And it challenges all of us.

My forays on the Internet hashkafa sites and blogs have revealed a frighteningly exhorbitant picture of how extensive this issue is. How many people among us who are steadfast and solid on the outside are brittle and crumbling on the inside. It's scary, it's devastating and it's contagious. None of us are immune. For "these are times that try mens' souls".

The Rambam enumerated for us 13 principles of Emunah. And for most of us religious minded folk, the bigger challenges come in the later innings. Are we really sold on the words of the prophets? Do we truly believe in Hashgacha Pratis and Heavenly reward and punishment? Do we anticipate Moshiach and Techiyas Meisim?

Understandable. But there are those who falter right at the starting gate with principle numero uno - does G-d really exist?

Comes Rabbi Moshe Averick to the rescue by giving us a baseline for Emunah in HKBH without a word of mussar. Without an interminable barrage of Talmudic epithets and poetic passages from Kohelles, Mishlei and Iyov. No Maharsha in gemara Makkos. Not a hint of Moreh Nevuchim, Kuzari or Chovos HaLevavos. No deep esoteric essays from Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler or Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin or the Baal Hatanya. Not even the "wonders of creation" antics of Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak and Zamir Cohen.

Rabbi Averick uses one weapon and one weapon only. A weapon that is surely not in the arsenals of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moammer Kaddafi, Barack Obama and, I daresay, the IDF.

Common sense.

Along with a sense of humor (no extra charge).

R' Moshe has written a monumental book that infiltrates the strongholds of skepticism and atheism and lays waste to its moorings using the very weapon they lack.

Cold unmitigated logic.

He calls it: Nonsense of a High Order

R' Moshe reviews the writings of such notable renowned godless thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Will Provine, Sam Harris, Leslie Orgel, Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Robert Hazen, Christian DeDuve, Stuart Kaufman, Frank Sonleitner (and others that nobody has thought of yet) and exposes them for what they are - Nonsense of a High Order.

Rabbi Averick points out that this kind of convoluted delusional thinking could not possibly have come about among earlier life forms but rather has slowly developed over millions and billions of years until it reached the sophistication it now enjoys.

True to his Jewish heritage, R' Moshe does convey a bit of cynicism and sarcasm but not without wit. In that sense I feel he is a soulmate. (If not for a few years, he might have been a classmate. Let's just say we grew up drinking the same water.)

I am quite impressed by this book and a bit envious that I did not (and most likely could not) write it myself. His book is barely out a few weeks and I can see that it is an immediate success. It's already been attacked.

Don't be fooled that this book was written for the gentile masses. It was written for us. This book should sit on every Jewish bookshelf and nightstand - right next to mine but with none of the dust.

I recommend this book to Jew and non-Jew alike. But a word of caution. Since his book is mainly a comparison between nonsense and common sense, it is only beneficial to those who can tell the difference. And in our endothermic world of reality, this is a rapidly shrinking population.

Oh, and while you're in the bookstore you may want to check out another book about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the origin of species (or is it the origin of spouses?) - In Laws: It's All Relative by Leah Shifrin Averick (with Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski). That's his Mom.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Related posts:

Doubting Thomases...and Yosselas

Yeshiva University Seforim Sale

2011-02-10T16:24:00.002+02:00

For all those Manhattanites who yearn to read One Above and Seven Below (and don't know how to use Amazon), I am happy to announce that the book is being featured in this year's YU Seforim Sale which is currently running from Feb 6-27 at 2495 Amsterdam Ave.

Of course the book is still available at Tiferes Stam on Coney Island Ave. in Brooklyn and also at Yeshiva Shaar HaTorah in Kew Gardens, Queens. I also have a distribution point in Lakewood (currently out of books but more on the way). Please email me at 1a7b.author@gmail.com if you would like to purchase the book in Lakewood.

משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה

It's About Time!

2011-01-22T22:49:00.004+02:00

Some of you may have noticed that I haven't had much to say over the past two months. At least one person did (is that the grand total???). On January 14 he posted a comment to my last post (from Nov 18) as follows:

2 months dude?????

And my response was (for those who are too lazy to go and look themselves):

Well, not for another 4 days.

Still, it is gratifying that there is at least one anonymous person out there who misses my blog. You are so far the first and only person to speak up.

In any case, I currently have been unable to devote much attention to my blog for various reasons. One of which is that since there is no money in it, it takes a back seat to ventures that do. I do hope to revitalize it at some point.

But I did appreciate your comment.

Of course it would be nice if my blog posts were to be profitable (does anybody want my Paypal address??) but it is quite obviously not the main issue. More accurately, when people would hear me explain my 1A7B project, or more recently, if they would look at my posts, I would typically hear (whispered behind my back) the same response:

That fellow's got way too much time on his hands!!

Well, I am happy to report that this is no longer the case. My schedule has gotten much busier of late. So the real story is not that I haven't had what to say as much as that I haven't really had the time to say it. Which brings up another comment I have heard (said to my face):

Your posts are much too long.

And if you think it takes a while to read them, imagine what it takes to write them. A good post is like a good meal. It can take hours to cook up and only minutes to eat.

This being the case, if I have no time to cook, I am left with a few choices for my customers: (1) throw something into the microwave, (2) feed them leftovers, or (3) let them go hungry.

Options 1 and 2 did not seem too appetizing and I really did not want to turn my blog into a series of reruns so for the most part I defaulted to option (3). But since I don't want the blog to go totally defunct (just yet) and this is the week between Parshat Yisro and Mishpatim, I will go into rerun mode and refer my loyal readers (if only the anonymous fellow from Jan 18) to one of the most fundamental and insightful as well as fascinating Torah essays that I have written:

Ad K'dei Kach

It explains what G-d really wants from us in 10 easy lessons. Don't pass it up!

There is some fresh material (on stale topics) that I still hope to write but I need more time (and money!) Yet, there is some light at the end of the tunnel: if we don't see some action from our primary customer and soon, our company may fold.

Then I'll have plenty of time.

Reform's New Direction and Orthodoxy

2010-11-18T13:47:00.011+02:00

Yep, there's a little bit of plagiarism here. I ~~stole~~ borrowed the title of this post from a very recent post at Emes Ve-Emunah. I read his post and "filed it away" as it doesn't really cross paths or lock horns with my subject matter. I do not share his optimism but there is nothing wrong with an upbeat post for a change. Hey, if the chareidim are a lost cause there may still be hope for the Reform (those who are really Jewish, at least)!

So, initially, I didn't see the post as relevant to my blog but...just this morning, a friend emailed me this anecdote. Aside that I got a real chuckle out of it, I thought the timing of it was apropos a day after I saw the E-V-E post.

Rabbi Harry's post began: First it was the Siddur. Now it is Kashrus.

What could possibly be next??? Well, here is the story of:

The President of the Reform Temple

The President of the Reform Temple, Saul Goldberg is greatly distraught and can not sleep nights. He decides to visit with the Rabbi of the temple, Rabbi Sally Johnson, and explain why he is so upset and to seek her advice.

"Rabbi," he explains, "as you know, I have been a loyal and devout member of the Reform Temple and movement all my life. Unfortunately, my daughters went against all my advice and married men that greatly upset me."

Rabbi Sally asks, "Really, Saul, how so ?"

"Well," Saul explains, "My first daughter became Modern Orthodox which as you know greatly upset me. But she married a medical doctor, and even though he was 100 percent Orthodox and they send their children to an Orthodox Yeshiva, at least, when its not Shabbat or a Jewish holiday he watches TV and he is a Mets fan like me. So I was upset , but at least I can somewhat handle it."

"My second daughter was tougher for me. She also became observant and married an Orthodox man. This guy had no college education at all but became a very wealthy diamond merchant. He also wears a long beard with payos with his tzitzit out with a big black hat and I am too embarrassed to introduce him to any of my liberal friends. But, I will say, he treats my daughter well and he does give her everything she wants, so I tolerate the situation."

Saul sighs, and Rabbi Sally asks, "Is the third daughter that tough to take?"

Saul replies, "Rabbi Sally, my third daughter went against all my Liberal thinking. She not only of course married an Orthodox Man and I have all Orthodox grandchildren, she married a Colonel in the Israeli Air Force who was known to assassinate, with great precision, the biggest leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah from the air. To make matters worse, Yisrael Beitenu may be drafting him as a candidate to run for Prime Minister after he finishes his Army career. All my liberal friends are upset at me and tell me he is killing an oppressed people."

Saul further explains, "The fact my daughter's family is very right wing and Orthodox makes it harder for me as my liberal friends remind me that it looks like Israel will all become Orthodox because of the birth rate!"

"Rabbi, How do I show my face at the Interfaith Council anymore ? Why are all my grandchildren Orthodox? Where did I go wrong?"

Rabbi Sally ponders in thought for a moment and asks:

"Did you check your Mezuzas?"

And a bit more plagiarism:

Who knows? Someday maybe – just maybe - there will be a massive return to Torah by vast numbers of Jews who will see the value of observance as more than just a means of self identification. Maybe they will embrace Judaism the way it should be embraced with complete observance to Torah and Mitzvos. - Rabbi Harry Maryles

Ohver L'Asiyasan

2010-11-15T15:08:00.014+02:00

Somehow I got myself subscribed to a daily email post called "Daily Halacha"(I think somebody did it for me!) It seems to be a Spring Valley based service to be "mezakeh ess harabim". It is a pleasure to receive these emails and I recommend it to everyone who wants to assure themselves as "bnei olam habah" based on the well known midrash:

תנא דבי אליהו: כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח שהוא בן עולם הבא.

You can subscribe to it at: dailyhalacha@aol.com

The current series of Halachos is on the subject of Chanuka and here is today's serving:

1610. The opinion of the Mishnah Brurah (really the Rema - YH) is that one should be careful to complete all the berachos before beginning to light the first ner because the beracha needs to be o'ver la'asiyoson (before the act of the mitzvah). However, other poskim disagree, and some have the minhag to say the second beracha while beginning to light. Shulchan Aruch with Mishnahh Brurah 676:1, Sefer Halichos Yosef 676:1

The issue that this halacha focuses upon is a component of Hilchos Berachos that we call "ohver l'asiyasan" which tells us that Berachos are to be made before one fulfills the deed that the beracha is consecrating. The best translation that I could get for the term "Ohver" l'asiyasan is "on the way to" doing the mitzvah.

We understand from this that we must recite a Beracha before a mitzvah is fulfilled. If the mitzvah is done, it is too late to recite the beracha.

But the question arises: at what point is it too late? Is it when the mitzvah is begun to be performed or is it okay to recite the beracha as long as the mitzvah is not totally completed?

Well, let's look at the Halacha quoted above. We note that it adds that there are those who only recite the second beracha after they begin to light (yours truly follows this opinion). Is this not a breech in ohver l'asiyasan?

And the easy answer is to say that there is a big difference between these two brachos. And this is that there are really two miutzvos involved with lighting Chanuka candles:

(1) Lighting the candles (הדלקה עושה מצוה ) and (2) Pirsumei nisa.

The first beracha applies to the lighting itself and so, to satisfy ohver l'asiyasan, it must be recited before we even begin to light. The second beracha is for the Pirsumei nisa. But, still, doesn't it also require "ohver l'asiyasan"? Don't you have to recite it before we even begin to perform the Pirsumei nisa?

According to the Rema, this does indeed seem to be the case. But the other poskim do not agree. Perhaps, their position is that the Pirsumei nisa is an ongoing mitzva and as long as it has not been completed, one may still recite the Beracha. The obvious ramification of this perspective is that in case one totally forgot to recite any Berachos and fully lit all the candles, he may still be allowed to recite the second Beracha as long as the Pirsumei nissa is in effect. Even 1/2 hour after he lit. Though, in this case, he most certainly will not be able to recite the first Beracha. It seems that even the Mishna berura agrees with this as he writes that if one forgot to recite the Berachos, he nonethelass can still recite the second Beracha.

We see a similar Halacha regarding the 4 minim on Sukkos. We all know the Halacha to initially hold the esrog in the wrong position and then to recite the Beracha on the 4 minim and then to rectify the esrog. This is because, technically, once one holds all 4 minim properly he has already fulfilled the mitzvah and if the Beracha has not yet been said, it would be a problem of ohver l'asiyasan.

Nevertheless, the Halacha states that if one neglected to recite the Beracha and took the minim in their proper position, he may still recite the Beracha as long as he has not yet completed the na'anuim. Here again we see that, b'diavad, one can recite a Beracha as long as the mitzvah has not been completed even though it has been fulfilled.

Now, it is not the main purpose of this blog to give Halacha shiurim. So why is this relevant?

It relates to a very interesting post which I posted over a year ago (October 2009 - click HERE) concerning what is widely known as the Nefesh B'Nefesh proposal. In the post, I embedded a video of a young Jewish man propsing to a young Jewish lady in public. For convenience, I will repost the video (note - the video may not be visible to email recipients):

After wishing the dear couple a hearty mazel tov, I went on to pose the question as to whether this proposal actually constitutes a valid Kiddushin d'oraysa. To date, I haven't been able to get a conclusive ruling. Some scholars think it meets the conditions of Even HaEzer 27:1,2 and she would be definitely mekudeshet. Others said that it meets the conditions of Even HaEzer 27:3 and she would be "safek mekudeshet". And there were some (clear minority) who wanted to maintain that she is not mekudeshet at all.

The obvious question at the time was: what difference does all this make?

And the most serious answer is: in the event that they do not go through with the marriage, would she require a get?

So now may be a good time to report that I did attempt to follow up a bit on this couple and from what I could discover, they are currently happily married (auf lange yahrin) and we can breathe easy.

But there were some other minor issues as I wrote then:

Now, assuming this radiant couple follows through to a typical marriage ceremony in the near future - and there is every indication from their enthusiasm that they will, IY"H, there are not many major ramifications to this question. The main issue is: should they conduct the erussin at the wedding with reciting the Birkat Erussin or not. If the erussin already took effect, it would be a bracha l'vatala. Another ramification is that according to many authorities (not all) the requirement for a married woman to cover her hair may already be in effect.

Now, the issue of covering hair can be put to rest because it is generally held that this obligation begins after the chuppa. But the issue of the Beracha is a little more tricky. Most people typically said that if it is only "safek mekudeshet" there are grounds to say that we could still make a Beracha but on the opinion that it is a fully valid kiddushin, it would be a Beracha l'vatala to make a second Beracha.

Indeed, Harav Ephraim Greenblatt from Memphis, Tenessee had recently made aliya and currently lives in Har Nof, and I asked him this question last year. He agreed that there would not be another Beracha and he brought down some source which, presently, I do not recall. And so, this is how I saw the Halacha...until about 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago was Parshat Chayei Sarah - shidduchim week - and I was attending the weekly Halacha shiur given by Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, Shlit"a. Harav Weiss based his shiur on the topic of performing a kiddushin by way of a proxy (shalich) and posed the question: if somebody makes a shaliach for kiddushin, who should make the Beracha (note - even though we don't practice it this way today, the obligation of the Beracha is on the one performing the mitzvah, i.e., the chosson).

There is no need to burden my readers with the intricities of the shiur, but he did bring down one opinion that was a tremendous chiddush. He said that this comes from the Teshuvos HaRivash.

Somewhere in his teshuva, the Rivash states that when one makes a kiddushin via a shalich, when the couple meet each other later on, he should redo the kiddushin with a Beracha!

The difficulty here is obvious. If the woman is already Halchically betrothed, how can one "do it again" and what can justify making another Beracha?

So Harav Weiss went on to suggest that the Rivash agreed with the Rif that the shaliach certainly can not recite the Beracha and since the chosson is not present, he cannot recite one either. As such, the kiddushin is effected without any Beracha at all. So why not make the Beracha after the kiddushin?

Well, we all know that we can't do that because a Beracha must be recited ohver l'assiyasan. Once the mitzvah is performed, it's too late.

But, here Harav Weiss wanted to suggest what we have said earlier. Even though l'chatchila the Beracha should be said before one begins the mitzvah, b'diavad, the Beracha can still be said as long as the mitzvah has not been completed. And so, he wanted to suggest that until the chuppa (nissuin) takes place, the kiddushin has not been completed. It may have the same status as taking a lulav but not yet doing the na'anuim or as the Beracha of SheAssah Nissim that we discussed here. Accordingly, as long the beracha has not been said at all, it can be said when the chosson does a "reenactment" before the chuppa.

Now, if this holds true, there is no reason not to apply it to our incident as well. And so, at least according to this opinion, it would appear that there is nothing wrong with making a belated Beracha at the "second" kiddushin even if the original kiddushin was 100% valid!

That said, I still want to leave my readers with the following Beracha:

May none of us ever need to make a kiddushin more than once.

ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר

Divergence from the Womb

2010-11-04T12:48:00.007+02:00

ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו

And two nations from your bowels (womb) will diverge...

Rashi explains: From your bowels (womb) they will be divergent; this one (Eisav) toward his wickedness and this one (Yaakov) toward his completeness.

Yaakov and Eisav were two very different characters and, as Rashi tells us, they were very different from the moment of conception.

But, what Rashi says to us seems to be going "against our grain". He indicates that Eisav was "born" to be wicked. As if it was pre-destined. And likewise, Yaakov was "born" to be righteous.

How do we reconcile this with our philosophy of "bechira"? Was Iyov right that every person's lot is dictated by his astronomical fortunes?

I don't think so. And I don't think this is what Rashi means either. Although Eisav could never be like Yaakov, I think he was very similar to Aharon HaCohen. And he could have been Aharon HaCohen. And he was meant to be Aharon HaCohen - the older brother who does the avoda while the younger brother (Moshe Rabenu/Yaakov) teaches the Torah.

He just passed up the chance.

To help us understand this, it may pay to do a little psychological analysis on the "divergence" between Yaakov and Eisav based on the principles of Carl Jung. And that's exactly what I did in a term paper about five years ago.

So, for all you Myers-Briggs buffs out there, I present:

Torah Perspective on MBTI Typology

Good Shabbos!

Remembering Choni HaMe'agel

2010-10-10T12:05:00.005+02:00

חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין

May we merit a very peaceful - and rainy - winter!

Note to email recipients: If you cannot view the embedded video, it is available for viewing on my main blog site.

What It Means to Convert

2010-10-05T00:07:00.018+02:00

I made a new pen pal today. I met him in the Talkback section of the Jerusalem Post. I have never met him personally and I don't know much about him but I know this much (assuming everything he writes is factual): He calls himself Eric and he lives in Israel. He is a born Jew and he has officiated at batei din for converts.

Thusfar, I shot the opening volley and he reacted to my comment. Currently, these both appear in the Talkback section of the relevant article. I responded to his reaction but, thusfar, it has not been posted online. The JP is painfully slow at posting comments (though not nearly as bad as Cross Currents). Perhaps he will continue the correspondence. We'll see. For now, let's rehash:

The Jerusalem Post article in question is titled: Converts Demand Hearing on Conversion Nullifications.

To summarize the article, 2 women are petitioning the High Court of Justice to force the Rabbinic court of Tel Aviv that reinstated their conversions to do more than that and to make a definitive ruling as to whether a Rabbinical court can annul a conversion in the first place.

Did I get that right?

Now, the opening paragraph of this article seems to indicate (note - much of the article is unclear) that at least one of the two women who are petitioning may be the very woman whose conversion was annulled by the dayan in Ashdod that triggered the whole ruckus in the first place.

Before we go on, it is very important to point out that, from what I remember reading 2-1/2 years ago when this controversy first erupted, that the nullification was based on the revelation that the "convert" in question was not observing any fundamental mitzvos of Judaism (i.e., Shabbos, Kashrut, Taharas HaMishpacha, etc.) and had not done so from day one of her "conversion". The annulment was not based on any of the real serious sins such as not keeping Rabenu Tam's zman, not insisting on Eidah Hachareidus Kashrut, 60+ denier stockings, or not being makpid on the Chavos Daas onah beinonis, (R"L). It was premised on the subject's neglect to observe anything at all. Zilch.

Keep this in mind. In fact, it was on this premise that I entered my comment in the Talkback section and here it is:

2. Silly Game

• Author: Chezkel • Country: Israel • 10/04/2010 11:55

This whole thing is just a silly game. For a conversion to be valid by Orthodox standards, the "convert" must observe the mitzvot by Orthodox standards. A convert who never begins to observe the mitzvot properly will never be accepted by the Orthodox community. Thus, if these "converts" wish to put the matter to rest, they must first commit to proper Torah observance. Then, it may be advisable to undergo a second conversion which should be a mere formality. Until then, forget it.

When I checked to see if the comment was posted (it took a few hours), there was also one or two responses. The more coherent one was from Eric and here is what he wrote:

4. To Chezkel

• Author: Eric • Country: Israel • 10/04/2010 16:34

Your words show you are likely a born Jew and don't understand what it means to convert. I too am a born Jew. However, I have also officiated at batei din for converts. I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process. I have also seen first hand the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards, saying for example that if they keep rabbanut kosher and not bedatz, they are not really Jewish. That's the problem -- whose standards should be applied? Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta? The state has laws and they need to be applied.

As I wrote earlier, I responded to this comment online. If the comment appears in the JP before I print this post, I will try to include it here.

There is an innate problem with JP Talkbacks in that there is a limit of 600 characters (okay, okay, it's more of a solution than a problem) and this does hamper one's ability to express themselves fully. As such, and as I have done numerous times in the past, I have ventured to move the dialog from the comments field into my own forum for home field advantage. Hence, I wish to offer a more elaborate response to Dayan Eric's comment.

>>Your words show you are likely a born Jew

True, indeed. Where did I give myself away?

>>and don't understand what it means to convert.

Now I need to get serious. The words that I bolded have an ambiguous connotation. (1) The way I initially understood the words: I don't understand the meaning of conversion. (2) What I think Eric really meant: I don't understand what the process of conversion means - or, more accurately, entails - for the one who is doing the converting.

From Eric's ensuing words: I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process. It is fairly clear that his intention was connotation #2.

>>I have also seen first hand the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards, saying for example that if they keep rabbanut kosher and not bedatz, they are not really Jewish.

Here, I am a bit confused. Is Eric referring to Dayanei Giur who are intolerant bigots or to just a bunch of laymen who are intolerant bigots but are not in the business of converting anybody (kind of like an armchair quaterback)?? I will deal with this issue of bigotry in due time, but for now, let's move on.

Hereupon, Eric asks the $64,000 question:

>>That's the problem -- whose standards should be applied? Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta?

And here is the $64,000,000,000,000,000 answer:

G-d's standards!!

And what might those be?

To answer this question, let us go back to Eric's ambiguous statement and take it both ways.

>>don't understand what it means to convert...

We'll start with connotation #1. What does it mean to convert? To convert means to change over from one state of being to another. When it comes to converting to Judaism, it means to change over from being non-Jewish to being Jewish.

So, basically "what it means to convert" in connotation 1 is really: what it means to be Jewish!

And what does it mean to be Jewish?

It means forging a covenant - a briss. But not a physical briss. The physical briss is a physical gesture to symbolize that one has made a spiritual commitment. And if one has not made the corresponding spiritual commitment, the physical briss is as Jewish as Mohammed's.

And what is the spiritual briss, the covenant? It is the acceptance and commitment to one 2-sided concept:

Anochi Hashem Elokecha and Lo Yihiye Lecha elohim acherim.

That is, Judaism is the commitment to observe Anochi Hashem Elokecha and the commitment to shun any form of elohim acherim.

That's the whole deal. Netto!

Now, all of the positive mitzvos that we do are physical manifestations of Anochi Hashem Elokecha just like the physical briss that every male Jew and true convert must undertake. Both the briss and the mitzvos are merely symbolic of a spiritual commitment of the soul. Likewise, all of the negative commandments (transgressions) are physical enactments of Lo Yihiye Lecha.

And if you do not accept upon yourself any positive mitzva, you have not accepted upon yourself Anochi Hashem Elokecha. And if you have not committed yourself to abstain from any negative mitzva (transgression) you have not abstained from "elohim acheirim".

And you have not accepted Judaism.

The Maharsha says all of this at the end of Masechet Makkos.

What is the most central and meaningful incantation of a Jew?

It is the pasuk: Shema Yisroel - Hear all of Israel, all Jews - Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad!

Do you know what Hashem Elokeinu means?

It means Anochi Hashem Elokecha!

Do you know what Hashem Echad means?

It means Lo Yihiye Lecha elohim acherim al panai!

The Mishna Berura (Chofetz Chaim) in Orach Chaim 61 s"k 2 says this based on the Talmud Yerushalmi in Berachos.

So what do we know?

Anochi Hashem = Hashem Elokeinu; Lo Yihiye Lecha = Hashem Echad.

Now, G-d tells us in Vayikra 26 that Im Bechukosai telechu v'es mitzvosai tishmoru - if you go in my ways and do my mitzvos - things will be pretty rosy.

What is "doing my mitzvos"? It's Anochi Hashem (remember the Maharsha?)

G-d also tells us - V'im bechusai timasu...l'bilti assos - if you detest my ways and refrain from doing... l'hafrichem - to transgress... things will get a bit chaotic.

What is "l'hafrichem - to transgress"? That's right, it's Lo Yihiye lecha (Maharsha again!)

L'Hafrichem is the ticket to gehinnom in this world and the next.

This is G-d talking. Not Ashdod's municipal rabbi and not Rabbi Avraham Sherman.

So what do we see now?

Judaism = Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye

Anochi Hashem = Hashem Elokeinu = Im B'Chukosai telechu = One Above = ticket to paradise (in both worlds)

Lo Yihiye lecha = Hashem Echad = V'Im Bechukosai Timasu = Seven Below = ticket to purgatory

Thus Judaism = the magic chemical compound Xd20Lv26D6 (Exodus 20: Anochi and Lo Yihiye; Leviticus 26: Im Bechukosai Telechu/Timasu; Deuteronomy 6: Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad).

Yechezkel Hirshman says this all over his book (but mainly in Chapter 6).

This is the formula for being Jewish. This is the meaning of the covenant - the briss - that one must undertake in order to be Jewish. And if one who was not fortunate enough to be born Jewish does not accept and adhere to this covenant (the same way the "born" Jews did at Mount Sinai), he or she has not become Jewish.

Now, let us address connotation #2: what it means to convert - meaning, what the potential convert must endure.

Eric tells me that: "I have seen first hand the emotional turmoil that is involved in the process."

Why is there such emotional turmoil? The answer is that many if not most of the potential geirim are not taught this essential truth of the primacy of Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha (and they don't read my book). Sometimes the fault lies with the teacher and sometimes with the student. But the potential convert is assaulted by a plethora of unequivocal dissertations of what Judaism is "all about' which tend to reflect everybody's opinion except G-d's.

Listen to G-d. He says "Anochi Hashem" and He says "Lo Yihiye Lecha". And take respite from your turmoil.

And it is now time to address Eric's statement about "the intolerant bigots in the Orthodox world who hold converts to higher standards".

Now, I wrote about this at length more than 2 years ago in a post (well worth reading) titled: Just Because We Are Xenophobic Doesn't Mean that We Hate Geirim! And it seems like some of the main points bear repeating.

You see, as I wrote above, Judaism is the observance of Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha. But it boils down to Im Bechukosai telechu - life will be great and we will merit eternal paradise. This much is cool. But it also comes with V'Im bechukosai timasu - we will live a life of happenstance and keri and earn the hot seat in the next world. This part is anything but "cool".

Here is some of what I wrote then:

What all this is saying is that Judaism is no benign game. Depending on how it's played it is either Bracha or Kelala; Chaim or Maves; Anochi Hashem or Lo Yihiyeh Lecha; One Above (Im Bechukosai Telechu) or Seven Below (V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu).
Get it?
Every Jew's purpose in life is to fulfill Anochi Hashem and Im Bechukosai Telechu and hang around the One Above camp. If he is transgressing on Lo Yihiyeh Lecha and is stuck at V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu and is populating the Seven Below camp, he is doing a harmful disservice to himself and to all of Klal Yisrael.

This certainly applies to a full born Jew; but, when I say "Every Jew", I mean every Jew.

For someone who was not born Jewish, this applies at least as much - so why should he want to become Jewish if it is just to spend his life in the Seven Below camp and live a life of keri? And why should the Jewish people want to accept a non-Jew who is only knocking on the door of the Seven Below camp?
One who stations himself in the Seven Below camp brings chance misfortune on the Jewish people, chance misfortune upon the world and chance misfortune upon himself. It brings klalah and maves.
Many of us are under the impression that a convert who sacrificed for Judaism will merit exemplary reward for his keeping of Torah and mitzvot - more than that of a regular Jew who received it as "an inheritance". I also assume that this is the case.

But be aware that Judaism is a two-way street!!
If it is true that a convert will receive a more splendid reward for observing Torah because no one forced him to be "Im Bechukosai Telechu" and he is doing it on his own initiative, then it is imperative that if he violates the Torah, he will receive a much harsher retribution because no one asked him to be "V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu" and he is doing it on his own initiative.

What all this is saying is that geirus is a very very dangerous game. One who truly becomes Jewish and then goes on to live a life of Lo Yihiye and V'Im Bechukosai Timaasu (keri) has basically done himself in. It is not an act of kindness to accept non-observers into Judaism to their eternal detriment. One who does not join Judaism at the Anochi Hashem level, at the Im Bechukosai Teleichu level, at the One Above level is much better off not being Jewish.

Rabbi Chaim Druckman doesn't understand this. and my pen pal Dayan Eric doesn't understand it. But those "intolerant bigots" understand it. They care more for the ger than any of these clowns and they tell them in no uncertain terms: If you are not going to play the game properly, don't destroy yourself. Better not to play the game at all. You can merit Olam Habah with just following the Noachide laws. Why become Jewish to inherit gehinnom?

These "intolerant bigots" know what's best for you.

And don't take it from me. Take it from Rabbi Tovia Singer, a fine upstanding caring intolerant bigot who expresses this very sentiment on the Singer and Gimpel Show Broadcast Live from the Temple Mount on Arutz Sheva (Sept 3, 2009).

Finally Eric states: The state has laws and they need to be applied.

Ah, yes. Since we cannot agree on the proper Halachic standards, we need to apply the secular standards of the State!!

Call me an intolerant bigot, but as long as the State's standards are his yardstick, I cannot acknowledge Dayan Eric's geirim as Jewish.

Write again soon, Eric.

Your pal,

Chezkel

Post Script:
The Jerusalem Post never did post my responding comment to Eric and, thus, our correspondence came to an abrupt halt. I am a bit puzzled about this since my comment was very relevant to the subject and not extreme in any way. Perhaps the JPost Web editor was lazing on the job.
I did not save a copy of the comment but it basically said, as I mentioned in this post, that the issue is not which level of Orthodox standards to insist upon (Yours? The rabbinate? The Neturei Karta?...) since the cases at hand involve "converts" who are not practicing Orthodox standards at any level at all.

The Most Terrible Crime a Human Being Can Commit

2010-09-15T01:00:00.008+02:00

What do we have to atone for more than anything else?

(If you received this post by email and cannot see this video, it can be found at my main blog site.)

אדם דואג על איבוד דמיו ואינו דואג על איבוד ימיו
דמיו אינם עוזרים וימיו אינם חוזרים

גמר חתימה טובה

Clarification for Email Recipients

2010-09-11T22:54:00.004+03:00

Those of you who receive my blog as an email feed may have been confused at the seemingly incoherent message expressed in the Shana Tova greeting (my previous post). This was a technical glitch.

There is a video clip embedded in the actual blog post and the Shana Tova message was relating to the video clip. Unfortunately, the email service that I use apparently did not pick up the video clip itself from the blog feed and delivered the post with only the text but without the embedded video.

In order to properly view the post, you must access the post at the actual blog site which is:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2010/09/shana-tova-from-all-of-our-friends.html

I am sorry for the error.

G'mar chasima tova.

Yechezkel

Shana Tova - From All of Our Friends

2010-09-08T15:44:00.004+03:00

Maybe, just maybe, by the end of the year, he will really mean it.

ויאמר כל אשר נשמה באפו, ה' אלוקי ישראל מלך -- ומלכותו בכל משלה!

לשנה טובה תכתבו ותחתמו

And I really mean it!

Yechezkel

Long Memories: The Deir Yassin Syndrome

2010-08-26T13:46:00.029+03:00

כי זוכר כל נשכחות אתה הוא מעולם ואין שכחה לפני כסא כבודיך

The Deir Yassin Syndrome is alive and well at Emes Ve-Emunah.

Definition:

Deir Yassin Syndrome - The tendency of belligerent people to dig up long-forgotten isolated episodes of unruliness with which to malign and defame a group or individual for lack of having anything up-to-date available for this purpose.

(Source - Miriam Webster Hirshman Collegiate Oxford Dictionary of Syndromes and other Psychatric Disorders - Vol IX, page 857)

Does anybody have a clue about what Deir Yassin was?

I didn't think so. Especially because it is a long-forgotten isolated episode.

Deir Yassin was an Arab village situated on a ridge west of Jerusalem overlooking the ancient Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway before it became the modern Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway. Prior to the great war in 1948, it was a bit difficult to truck vital goods into Jewish Jerusalem because the Arabs that lived in the villages overlooking the highway, or those who were just visiting, would go sniping at the trucks just for the fun of it. The Jewish militias had to break the siege on Jerusalem and, to do so, they needed to occupy some of those villages.

As one Wiki site put it (thank G-d for copy/paste):

In an effort by the Jewish militias to clear the road to Jerusalem, which was being blockaded by Arab forces, Deir Yassin was attacked and emptied of its inhabitants on April 9, 1948, by 120 Irgun and Lehi forces, reinforced by Haganah troops. The invasion was part of the Haganah's Operation Nachshon. A unit from the Palmach, the Haganah's strike force, took part in the assault using mortars. Around 107 villagers, including women and children, and four Irgun or Lehi men were killed. The incident became known as the Deir Yassin massacre.

There are numerous accounts to exactly what happened, none of them reliable. Any person who was involved, Arab or Jew, Irgun or Haganah has good reason to bend the truth. You can find most of the (alleged) details on the other Wiki site (thank G-d for hyperlinks). The "world" calls it a massacre. We call it a strategic battle. Regardless, it was a bloody mess.

Despite its necessity as a strategic maneuver, it was seen as an act of Jewish agression. Likely, more people died than needed to but the question is: who is to blame for that? Depends who you ask. To some extent it may have been a departure from our more defensive stances. It was certainly no more aggressive than the constant Arab riots and raids that the Jewish Yishuv faced incessantly. It was nothing more than playing the game by "their" rules but, as has always been the case, we are not allowed to play the game by "their" rules.

But, one thing is certain - it was a unique one-time event. It occurred on April 9, 1948 (5 weeks before the Brits finally called it quits) and nothing comparable happened before it or after it. It had a number of positive repercussions - (1) it was a successful attack and (2) it indeed let the Arabs know that this game is for keeps. But it had plenty of negative ones as well. It became the showcase event that we Jews can be just as savage and "atrocious" as our foes and certainly gave the Arabs and their sympathizers grounds for continuing the atrocities that they never seemed to need any grounds for. And, ever since, this event has been molded and melded into the Arab lament of "senseless persecution" and opression at the hands of the Jewish "savages". It has been hailed as the Arab Alamo.

Remember the Alamo! Remember Deir Yassin!

In terms of a showcase event, Deir Yassin had a long shelf life. Whenever Arab sympathizers wanted to portray Jewish "savagery" it was Deir Yassin. Always Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin yesterday and Deir Yassin today. For decades. Always Deir Yassin. Only Deir Yassin.

And why?

Because there is nothing but Deir Yassin. Despite numerous flaws in its claim to savagery, it was always all there was. There was nothing else to point to except Deir Yassin. Nothing else ever happened to prove that Deir Yassin was standard operating procedure. And so, the Deir Yassin debacle has been kept alive on artificial respiration long beyond its life expectancy. Our antagonists have gotten a lot of mileage out of Deir Yassin. It's amazing how far it could go on an empty tank (maybe not, when so many people get out and push) but, eventually, it had to run out of gas. So, more recently, newer "atrocities" had to be fabricated. And so they came up with the al-Dura myth, the Goldstone libel and the flotilla fallacy.

But, it wasn't too long ago, even in the 1990s, that I was still reading, "Remember Deir Yassin". And I would feel a feeling of pride. Even 50 years after the event, our antagonists have nothing more current to defame us with other than the archaic Deir Yassin. ומי כעמך ישראל!

And this is the Deir Yassin Syndrome. When it becomes absolutely imperative to defame somebody and there is no current up-to-date dirt available. And the muck rakers resort to digging up old dirt from an historical era.

I have dealt with this a lot in my second life as a chareidi "apologist". There have been very few incidents of unprovoked violence within the chareidi world, even among the "kanayim". Many of the most celebrated incidents were far from the one-sided wolf vs. sheep stories they are made out to be, just like Deir Yassin. But, being all there is from the slim pickings, they are milked for all they are worth and replayed again and again.

This is the Deir Yassin Syndrome.

Currently, Deir Yassin is a very peaceful place. It is a residential complex for folks who suffer from Deir Yassin Syndrome and other psychiatric disorders. And right next to that is Kfar Shaul (a mental hospital). I prefer to view the Deir Yassin event in the most positive light. Especially because I live ~~there~~ close by. And I am not the only person whose name you can find in the "hashkafa" blogs who has a residence in the ~~Deir Yassin~~ ~~Kfar Shaul~~ Har Nof complex. Among the ~~inmates~~ residents are: Harav Moshe Sternbuch, Shlit"a, Rabbi Moshe Grylak, R' Jonathan Rosenblum, R' Menachem "Manny" Nissel, and... R' Dovid Orlofsky.

And here is where the Deir Yassin Syndrome comes to haunt us.

It is now Ellul 5770 and our self proclaimed failed-Messiah, Rabbi Harry Maryles, needs to redeem his people and feed the frenzied masses that lust for his ~~motzi shem rah~~ macha'ahs. Rabbi Harry Maryles' soul is evidently completely pure, and he has no need for any personal pre Yom HaDin soul-searching. Thus, so as his Ellul should not be a total loss, he has magnanimously decided to devote his Ellul to searching other people's souls. And, for some strange reason, the unfortunate soul that Harry needs to purge belongs to Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky.

It seems that Harry, who does not have a living rebbe to look up to for inspiration, has become a chossid of one who calls his message "Failed Messiah". These two are definitely cut from the same cloth.

Failed Messiah somehow thinks that this is a good time to post some 5 1/2 year old clips that convey some misguided outbursts expressed by Rabbi Orlofsky at the heat of the Slifkin affair. 5 1/2 years ago! Apparently, it is never too late to malign R' Orlofsky and by association, Ohr Somayach, despite the fact that R' Orlofsky is no longer a member of their staff. And, of course, Ellul is the perfect time as Chazal say: תכלה שנה וקללותיה . (Let the year and its afflictions draw to an end.)

And now, Harry, the magnanimous soul-searcher has to alert everybody - based on these 5 year old clips and nothing else (Deir Yassin Syndrome!), what a kellalah Rabbi Orlofsky is. And don't forget Ohr Somayach!

And the King (Elvis Ve-Emunah) and Haman (Failed Messiah) sat down to rake muck, and the city of ~~Deir Yassin~~ ~~Kfar Shaul~~ Har Nof was perplexed.

We just don't get it. What's going on here? These clips are 5 1/2 years old (and I believe they come from the same speech!).

I know Rabbi Orlofsky. I live very close to him. I have attended many of his Motzaei Shabbos shiurim. He is a very passionate person. And it is those passions that have motivated him to devote his life to chinuch and kiruv. There isn't much personal glory in this. I can tell you that. It is absolutely l'shem shamayim. But, strong passions can be a double edged sword, and the same forces that enable a person to be a very effective and inspirational figure can also enable him (or her) to fly off the handle. And it happens to ~~all~~ most of us - on occasion. This is one explanation of what Chazal tell us: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו.

And when these occasions are rare, it hardly characterizes the person. And if you can't come up with more than one incident to judge by, you can't even be certain that you are evaluating that one incident properly.

Just like Deir Yassin.

Now, I listened to the clips and I also think that they are way over the top. I think many people made mistakes in the course of the Slifkin affair. Some of whom with very long beards. And I also believe that our gedolim can be manipulated. But it's history. It's more than 5 1/2 years. These clips were said by a passionate person in the heat of the moment. And, from what I was told, Rabbi Orlofsky and Rabbi Weinreb have long ago kissed and made up.

But, Harry Maryles (as well as Failed Messiah and Natan Slifkin) has a long memory. And he has a mission to accomplish. We must not be allowed to forget. And sins cannot go unpunished. Yet I wonder:

Have you ever met Rabbi Orlofsky? Of his 100s of hours of taped lectures have you heard a single minute besides the two 5 year old 1.5 minute clips that makes you know everything? What personal connection do you have with Rabbi Orlofsky that it is a mitzvah to destroy him? What vast eternal plan is at stake that it is so necessary to write a post to assassinate the character of somebody who clearly does his work l'shem shamayim even if he has gone overboard on occasion? Harry, you are so good at identifying and broadcasting every current chillul Hashem, why must you resurrect old ones?

What's Harry's justification for the unmitigated Loshon Harah (if not Motzi Shem Rah) that he feels compelled to print in the middle of Ellul 5770? That he's making a macha'ah? For statements expressed 5 years ago and not since?

Has he lost (what's left of) his marbles??

And now, here comes Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein and he goes out of his way to join ranks with - of all "people" - Harry Maryles and Failed Messiah! Eh tu, Brutus?? You are with them? I used to respect you as a gifted and rational writer. But if you are going to be mapil pur with these sonei Yisrael, (or Kohein, in this case), you lost me. I actually hit the eject button when you threw in the line - "(to whose ankles in Torah R. Orlofsky will never rise)".

Have you sunk to playing the "measuring" game? (R' Reuven will never reach the shoelaces of R' Shimon in Torah who will never reach the ankles of R' Levi in Avoda who will never reach the kneecaps of Don Luigi in chessed who will never reach the gartel of R' Tom in dveikus who will never reach the navel of R' Dick in yirah who will never reach the pippik of R' Harry in ~~gaavah~~ anavah who will never reach the breita pleitzis of the middle linebacker for the Pittsburg Steelers who...)

Spare me. Even though I will never come down to the toenails of Rabbi Adlerstein, when one resorts to playing the "measuring game" among contemporaries, he becomes one-dimensional and pretentious.

And he can also fall prey to the Deir Yassin Syndrome.

For better or worse, Ohr Somayach, Darkei Bina and Ohr Lagolah have been moving on and doing their work for the past 5 years with no major upheavals. Why are they all of a sudden at a crossroads now? What incalculable harm is looming for 5771 when you cannot attribute sins to Rabbi Orlofsky any more recently than 5765?

I think it's incalculable because Rabbi Adlerstein is dividing by zero.

I just don't get it.

Failed Messiah, Harry Maryles and Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein. From New York to Chicago to California. There must be some connection with having a "rosh katan" and a long memory.

Yeah - Remember the Alamo! Remember Deir Yassin! Remember the Slifkin fiasco! Remember Miriam Shears!

Remember Yetzias Mitzrayim!

Remember Amalek!

Remember the Shabbos and keep it holy!

Remember Maamad Har Sinai!

Remember how we angered G-d in the desert!

Remember Miriam and her Loshon Harah!!!! Remember what Hashem your G-d did to Miriam...

ותקבל ברחמים וברצון סדר זכרונותנו

And All the Nations of the World Will Fear You

2010-08-23T23:58:00.005+03:00

ומנין שהתפילין עוז הם לישראל? דכתיב: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך
ותניא ר' אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש

And from where do we know that the Tefillin are the strength of Israel? For it is written (Devarim 28:10): And all the nations of the world will see that the name of Hashem is read upon you, and they will fear you!
The braitha teaches - Rabi Eliezer the Great says: This refers to the Tefillin on the head.
- Brachos 6a

From Yechezkel's Shabbos Table - Crossing the Desert

2010-08-21T21:52:00.011+03:00

In this (past) week's parsha, the Torah forbids us from accepting an Amoni or Moavi as a full fledged convert. And why?

On the surface, the Torah offers us two reasons for this:

על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים ואשר שכר עליך את בלעם בן בעור מפתור ארם נהרים לקללך

For the matter that they did not receive you with bread and water on the road when you exited from Egypt.
And as to that he hired Bilaam...to curse you.

The commentaries converge en masse to try to make sense out of these two reasons. And, at the very least, the manner they are presented. The great difficulty is not with reason number 2 - that he hired Bilaam to curse you. It seems to be a very sensible reason to turn down their application. But how are we supposed to understand the first reason - they did not greet you with bread and water?

The questions abound, mainly, isn't this a bit overblown? What's the big deal? After all:

Does this mean free bread and water (Chizkuni)? No other nation greeted us with free bread and water and we have no problem with them. We all know there is no such thing as a free breakfast!
If we mean that they were not willing to sell us bread and water, well, the pasuk in Devarim 2:29 explicitly indicates that the Moavim were happy to do so (see Oznayim L'Torah ad loc). Business is business!
And, why did we need bread and water in the desert anyway, didn't we have the mahn and the spring of Miriam?

And, even if we consider it a valid shortcoming, how does it compare in significance to the second reason? Moreover, why does it deserve to get precedence over the second reason?

Another question: The term the Torah uses for "receive you with bread and water..." is קדמו. Though, difficult to translate into English, the implication of this choice of terminology is to head off, to make the first move, to preempt, to be there before something else...

...to be there before what? What were they supposed to preempt?

I have seen some or all of these questions in the works of various prominent commentaries, but there is one looming question that I have yet to see in print:

The Torah tells us that "they did not receive you with bread and water בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים - on the road as you exited Egypt".

When you exited Egypt? That was 40 years ago! The encounter with Moav and Bilaam and Baal Pe'or occurred at the end of the 40 year period when we were encamped at Arvos Moav. Why does the Torah call this בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים?

Now that we brought it up, it does seem a bit curious, doesn't it? This phrase - בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים - has not yet made an appearance in the entire Torah. And here in this Parsha, Ki Teitzei, it suddenly shows up written identically no less than 3 times!! The first time is here in our pasuk - Devarim 23:5. The second time is in Devarim 24:9 when we are commanded to recall the ordeal of Miriam and her tzoraas. The third time is in 25:17 in the renowned Parshat Zachor when we recall the attack of Amalek.

Three times the identical phrase in this Parsha and nowhere else in the Torah! There must be some common denominator. Yet none of the classical commentaries deal with it. Even the great Baal HaTurim whose mission is to compare identical phrases throughout the Tanach seems to have overlooked this one (we will have to dock him from his pay!)

But, returning to our question, the use of this phrase by Amalek makes perfect sense. They attacked us in Refidim, within a month or two of our Exodus. The ordeal of Miriam occurred in the second year, prior to the incident of the spies. Perhaps, this can also be considered "on our way out of Egypt". But the incident with Moav and Bilaam? This did not occur until after the 40 years, as stated earlier.

The key to solving this problem lies with the commentary of Rabeinu Bechaye. But first, let us study a passage from the gemara in Kiddushin (31b):

Rabi Tarfon had a mother for whom when she wanted to go into her bed he would bend down so she can climb up on him and when she wanted to step off she would step down on him. He expressed an exaltation in the Beis HaMidrash and the Rabbis said to him, "You have not yet reached the midpoint of your obligation. Has it occurred that she threw your money purse into the sea in front of you and you restrained from berating her?"

How are we to understand the obligation of honoring our parents? We can look at it from 2 perspectives:

1- The relationship that we have with our parents mirrors the relationship we have with HKBH. We must honor them in order to simulate the honor that we must have for our Father in Heaven. This is mentioned explicitly in the gemara in Kiddushin 30b.

In this sense, the mitzva is actually a mitzva of Bein Adam L'Makom - between man and G-d. This can explain why this mitzva is to be found on the first of the 2 tablets.

2 - The more pragmatic aspect is that it is Bein Adam L'Chaveiro. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our parents. Even if they did not look after us from the time of our birth (which is seldom the case) we still owe our very existence to them for they brought us into the world. For those to whom we owe our very existence, there is no limit to the extent that we must express our gratitude.

This is the message that the Rabbis conveys to Rabi Tarfon. All of your gestures do not even reach the midpoint because, for something without limit, there is no midpoint.

Now, returning to our subject, Rabeinu Bechaye explains that Amon and Moav carry a tremendous debt of gratitude toward the descendents of Avraham. Because it is only in the merit of Avraham Avinu that their ancestor Lot was saved from the destruction of Sodom. The descendents of Ammon and Moav are indebted to Avraham Avinu - and, by extention, to us - for their very existence! And, as such, no gesture of appreciation would be considered too much.
And so, the Torah is telling us in reason number 1 that if Ammon and Moav truly appreciated their obligations to Klal Yisrael, they would have, 40 years previous, the moment they heard that this great nation was released from Egypt, they would have loaded up their camels with bread and water, and crossed over the entire Sinai desert and offered to take care of their needs for bread and water before HKBH took the initative to miraculously supply water and mahn. They should have said, "HKBH, hold off with the miracle bread and spring water. The bread and water is on us."

So the Torah says: על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים . For the matter that they didn't run across the desert and take the initiative to provide bread and water...

But, you may say, this is a bit of an exagerration. Okay to be friendly and not hostile and to help the Jews when they come knocking at their door, but you don't mean to actually get up and cross the desert and feed them...

So the Torah adds: בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים

Where else do I find this phrase? Oh yes, by Amalek - 25:17 (we will have to shelve the reference by Miriam in 24:9). And what did Amalek do?

That's right, the moment that they heard that this great nation was released from Egypt, they loaded their camels with guns and knives and journeyed out across the entire Sinai desert just to attack us and do us harm. Because they hated us. They hated us so much they just couldn't wait to attack us even if it means transsecting a huge formidable desert.

To attack us. To harm us.

Now, to be fair, this is not without a basis. After all, Yaakov our ancestor did indeed steal the brachos from Eisav, their ancestor. So there does exist some form of "debt of hatred". And the sons of Eisav are very good about making good on their debts. But our relationship with Ammon and Moav should be different. There is no "debt of hatred" to be paid, but rather a debt of gratitude. Something that is normally expressed by chessed and kinship.

So, the Torah asks, if one nation is so motivated to load up their camels with weapons and cross the desert for destruction and evil, and the middah of Tov is 500 times greater than the middah of Rah (Rashi Shmos 20:6), is it too much to ask another nation to load up their camels and to cross the desert for chessed and emes?

And if they would have done so, imagine what they may have been zocheh to!!

So the Torah tells us: על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים

Okay, so 40 years ago when they had a chance for greatness, which would entail no more effort than the Amaleikim actually invested for their destructive purposes, they passed it up. We can live with that. Not everybody is so motivated. But what happened now when these Jews to whom they owe so much are actually standing at their doorstep?

ואשר שכר עליך את בלעם בן בעור מפתור ארם נהרים לקללך.

Can a nation that is so ungrateful, that is so treacherous ever have a place in Klal Yisrael?

לא תדרוש שלמם וטבתם כל ימיך לעולם.

What a Disgrace!

2010-07-31T22:42:00.012+03:00

What a disgrace!

I am referring to a very disturbing post that was written under a banner called Emes Ve-Emunah. And the post begins with these very same words: What a disgrace!

Now, I can't say that it's the most disgraceful post that I have seen in that forum, but it certainly ranks with the all-timers. For here, once again, he lambasts an observant religious authority for (shame of shames) DOING HIS JOB. (One of the first times that I had to deal with this methodology was in this post:
Because of Kamtza and Bat Kamtza was the House Destroyed)

But the amazing thing is, in order to accomplish this, he distorts and misrepresents the facts that are already distorted and misrepresented in the press. And by further distorting what is already distorted, it becomes his holy crusade to malign what he calls "the orthodox establishment". Yep, you heard me right, folks. He has graduated from the chareidim (those violent thugs) to the "orthodox establishment".

And I have come (and stayed up very late tonight) to clean up the mess.

The first step is to check out Rabbi Maryles' source material to see what the article really says.

Did you like the line: "Zionism runs in my family," the Detroit native says?

Second, let us try to understand what went on in view of how things work in Eretz Yisrael. One point of introduction:

A Rabbanut or, more accurately, a Moetzet HaDati (Religious Counsel), in any given municipality is an office that oversees the religious needs of the locality. This includes shuls, mikvaos, eruvin, and kashrus, and registry for weddings, divorces and funerals. They may or may not also have a Beit Din but they are not a Beit Din themselves. They are an office!! Even if they have a Beit Din, the local Beit Din may be qualified for only certain issues (such as a Beit Din for mammonus - monetary disputes) and not for more complicated issues. The people that work there are generally devout people but they may or may not be rabbanim.

Once we know this, let us analyze the article:

Here is a young American woman who approaches a municipal Rabbanut (which is not a court) to receive an approbation for marriage. The article claims that she brought letters from 4 Conservative (i.e. non-Orthodox) Rabbis and one Chabad (presumably Orthodox, but don't get me started...). At the same time, it states that:

...her parents are divorced and she can no longer provide their ketuba (Why not? - YH). The facts that her parents' get, or bill of divorce, was prepared by a Conservative rabbi (i.e., if he, and or any witness, is a mechallel Shabbos b'farhesiya, the get is invalid - YH) and that her mother has since remarried a Catholic (i.e., she is a mumar l'avoda zarah - YH)...

Allegedly, the fellow who was in charge of the registry (not a dayan) did not feel that the letters that she brought were acceptable. The article doesn't say why, but it could very well be that he was not authorized to accept them (as we shall see). For the record, when I made Aliyah, I also needed a letter from a Rabbi that I am Jewish. The letter I presented said nothing more than, "I know these people to be proper Jews...". It really did not offer much convincing proof, except perhaps that the Rabbi who wrote it was Orthodox. I did have my wife's Kesuba. It just may be because I wasn't related to Nachum Sokoloff that I had such an easy time.

Back to our incident, according to the article, the registry fellow demanded that she produce the Kesubos of matriarchs up 4 generations. I personally don't believe this. I think she is dramatizing. Nobody needs to present all of that documentation (note that her fiance's papers were fine and I will bet my rent money he didn't produce kesuvos from 4 generations up). But one may be required to present at least some of it. My gut feeling is he would have been satisfied with one or two generations if she could even do that.

But she couldn't.

She couldn't come up with her own mother's kesuba nor either of her grandparents who survived the Holocaust, nor their death certificates, nor her mother's birth certificate. At least, not on the spot.

I must reiterate that it is clear from this article that our subject (Miss Hillary) was dealing with a registry office and not a Beit Din. As a registry offfice, it has rules as to what it can accept on its own as proof of being Jewish and what it must refer to a higher body (i.e., a Beit Din that is qualified in this area). All this is for the common good, so that we can ensure that people who claim to be Jewish really are and thus to protect the integrity of Jewish identity (for those who value it).

So the fellow (not a dayan, remember?) did what he was supposed to do - he referred her to the Beit Din. That was his job. The article (if Rabbi Maryles would have read it) says so:

The Chief Rabbinate recently enacted new guidelines automatically sending marriage candidates whose parents did not wed in Israel to a local rabbinical court to determine whether they are really Jewish.

The fact is that everybody needs to do this. My own daughter got married last year. Both she and her chosson come from FFB families all the way up the line. But neither me nor my mechutanim were married here. So they needed to procure letters from their Yeshiva and seminary plus give information on who are their Chosson/Kallah-lessons teachers and bring them to Beit Din for an Ishur. It's not a big deal if you are genuinely Jewish and genuinely observant. Ironically, they did it through the "ultra-Orthodox" Eida Chareidis bes din because there was less red tape than to do it through the Rabbanut!!

Now, our hero Ms. Hillary also needed to go to Beit Din. Those are the rules. But she refused to do it. I bet she could come up with some of that documentation if she really wanted to, but it's easier to blame the hard-hearted extemists who are doing their job and to honeymoon off to Cyprus.

"At this point, I no longer want to play (be) [by] their rules. I want to fight what they're doing," Rubin, who observes Shabbat and keeps kosher, said...Rubin and her fiance' - whose documents were accepted by the rabbinate as valid proof of Jewishness - did not even want to try to convince the rabbinical court that she is a Jew...The young couple believes the consequences of going through the rabbinical court are "much worse" than not going at all. (Emphasis mine - YH)

So the "observant" Jewish girl doesn't want to go to Beis Din!? They stand to come out worse than if they "try to convince the rabbinical court"... !!

Why? What is she hiding?

This kind of behavior does not look good on her resume. Actually, it's downright suspicious.

But Harry Maryles calls this event "A disgrace." To Harry Maryles, to send somebody with a checkered past to Beit Din to check out their Jewishness is a disgrace (note that Harry never even mentioned that they were sent to Beis Din as are the rules, only that the registrar at the Rabbanut which he erroneously called a "rabbinical court" did not give the approbation that he is not authorized to give).

To get a clearer picture, let us check out some of what Harry wrote in light of what we know (his words are in burgundy):

But I also charge the current orthodox establishment in Israel with treating fellow Jews with contempt in the name of religion.

I don't know why guidelines equally applied are called "contempt".

I refer to the case of Hillary Rubin. She is a grandchild of the holocaust. Her grandparents were gassed by the Nazis. (Update - RHM apparently edited his post. It now reads: Her grandparents are survivors of the Holocaust. I wonder what tipped him off?)

No, her grandparents survived the Holocaust - all four of them. They are required by Halacha to have kesuvos even if they were married before the war and their original kesuvos were lost.

She now lives in Israel and is an observant Jew.

Ready to undergo a Conservative marriage.

But when it came time for her to get married, she was told by the by a rabbinical court in Herzliya (Update - the words in italics were edited to: Herzliya rabbinate.)

The article did not say that the Rabbanut in Herzliya is a rabbinical court.

that she needed to bring the Kesuvos (religious marriage contracts) of grandmothers going back 4 generations to prove her Jewishness.

The problem is that any such documentation was destroyed in the holocaust. She cannot provide any such proof.

How about the grandmothers who survived the holocaust? they still need kesuvos?

The fact that she brought letters of testimony from 5 people one of whom was a Chabad rabbi made no difference to them.

You mean, made no difference to him. It wasn't a court. He wasn't a dayan.

Neither did the fact that it was impossible for her to provide documentation they asked for due to the holocaust.

Perhaps not all of it, but how about some of it?

I understand the issues involved. One must be Jewish to get married to another Jew. If there is any doubt about it it needs to be proven.

Can you repeat that last line?

In our day where heterodox movements are doing conversions that are not in accordance with Halacha and in one instance accepts patrilineal descent as equally determining one Jewishness – it can be a problem. It is quite reasonable to ascertain the Jewish status of an individual that was so defined by a heterodox movement and not born Jewish via matrilineal descent.

But how far do we go with that? When is a rabbinical court justified in insisting on impossibly draconian demands like those made upon Ms. Rubin? (Update - or, rather, no update. Here he hasn't bothered to change the text)

Again with the Rabbinical court??

She had two parents that were Jewish,

How do you know?

grandparents that were murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust, (Update - this line modified)

Her grandparents survived.

and she had testimony from at least one kosher witness - a Chabad Rabbi.

Do you know what his "testimony" was actually attesting to?

And why stop there? We are all suspect, are we not? Who is to say that our parents were really Jews without proof going back 4 generations? My grandparents died in the holocaust too. My parents told me they were Frum. But that is the sum and substance of my proof. I have no clue or proof whether my maternal great-great grandmother was Jewish. Why should my children be treated any differently than Ms. Rubin was?

Did your wife marry a catholic?

Why should anyone’s children be treated differently?

Did you read the part about the guidelines?

But we are. Those of us who are raised Frum are assumed to be Jewish. I doubt that any one of us were ever required to bring any proof at all about it.

Keep doubting. Nevertheless, people who keep Torah and mitzvos - what we call "Kosher yidden" - have a chezkas kashrus.

But those of us who are not in this category –

Peolple who do not keep Torah and mitzvos - and are children of women who are "mumar l'avoda zarah" do not have a chazkas kashrus.

if things keep going in this direction – will be written out of Judaism!

This is a grossly unfair approach

Please explain why it is unfair.

which serves to destroy Heterodoxy by destroying the lives of non Orthodox Jews. These are not honorable intentions. They are divisive and destructive ones. I realize there is an increasing ‘Jewish status’ problem. But prejudicial treatment of non Orthodox Jews is not the way to solve the problem.

As long as they are actually Jewish, but how do we know this without a chezkas kashrus?

Unless all Jews are subjected to the same standards

Did you read the part about the guidelines?

- no one should be. Unless a serious question is raised about a questionable conversion or there is some evidence that one is not Halachicly Jewish, most Jews have a Chezkas Kashrus and should be presumed to be Jewish.

a chezkas kahrus is based on being Shomer Torah and mitzvos.

The vast majority of Conservative Jews no matter how religious or secular were born of a Jewish mother.

The vast majority don't marry catholics.

It is grossly unfair to treat our fellow Jews this way just because they were not raised in an Orthodox home. Ms. Rubin - whose parents are Jewish;

Unproven

whose grandparents were massacred in the holocaust, (Update - again, modified)

Untrue

and who had a letter from a Kosher witness testifying to her Judaism -

No idea what the letter said

And the court that rejected her Judaism –

The court didn't reject her Judaism - she refused to go to court.

asking her to do the impossible –

nobody has to do the impossible

reveals the true motive of these rabbis. It is to eliminate ‘lesser Jews’ from our ranks.

Batei Dinim are here to help people, not hurt them.

This attitude

...of yours.
Rabbi Maryles, I am appalled. You are fanning the flames of divisiveness instead of cooling things down. Instead of fortifying the legitimate actions of the Herzliya Rabbanut (trust me, this is not the Eida Charedis), and simply trying to help the ~~disoriented~~ unoriented to understand what the issue is, how the process works, and why it is important - the part that you go out of your way to play down! - you feel you are doing a better service to Klal Yisrael by standing up for the girl who refuses to go to Beit Din and criticizing the fellow who sent her there. Perhaps you grew up in Detroit but the fellow from Herzliya did not. He has no idea who she is. And she can't even (or refuses to) produce one kesuva! To some of us, the standards of yuchsin are precious. And without these standards, it will one day have to apply to your (or my) children.

ought not to be allowed to stand.

What a disgrace!

Gay...Gezunteheit??

2010-07-29T14:10:00.005+03:00

So I finally found a little time to write and, like Punxsutawney Phil, I stick my head out of my gopher-hole to see what's happening in the Jewish world. Well, the summer solstace is behind us and the shadows are indeed getting longer and I can only predict another six weeks of absolute chaos (and then comes Judgement Day!)

That's the optimistic forecast.

Even though I have been a bit quiet over the past few weeks, I have been lurking in the alleys (did anybody miss me?...didn't think so!). I sometimes had the urge to write but not the time and, perhaps, sometimes had the time to write but not the urge. Tragic plane crashes can do that sort of thing to me. (There was a time when I lived on the same block as Shalom and Simi Menora, now I live on the same block as Zevi and Kelly Klein. The dress that my 17 year old daughter wore at my older daughter's wedding last year was borrowed from Sara Klein, ZT"L.)

I had some plans to write about the conversion bill (I have a six-month extension on that now) or about the Orthoprax Rabbi ( a true oxy-Moron), but nothing materialized.

So as my blog devolves from a daily to a weekly to a monthly (moving quick toward quarterly), what is the burning issue of the day?

It is the just released Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community.

And when I say "just released" I mean it. The site that I linked to has it dated as July 28, 2010. I remember that date as if it was yesterday. There is some significance to this which I hope to get to shortly.

Now, I got wind of this proclamation just this morning as I was checking the sage wisdom of Rabbi Harry Maryles as I so regularly do.

I actually read over the statement. It contains 12 principles, just one less than Rambam! In general, the proclamation is saying that despite the Halakhic injunctions against homosexual behavior, the rules of mentschlichkeit and kavod habrios are not to be inhibited.

Now, on the face of it, this is very reasonable and the author(s) seemed to have taken much care to acknowledge that there are still "red lines" of Halakha that must be respected. It is clear that the author(s) were struggling on the NCOJ (non-chareidi Orthodox Jew) tightrope to maintain the balancing act that is forever a part of the non-Chareidi world. One goal of this was to gain the widest scope of acceptance that is attainable in the greater Orthodox world.

Rabbi Maryles affixes his own stamp of approval though, commendibly, he does voice his objections on a number of details that are a bit too liberal for even his tastes. For the record, I agree with his objections. Nevertheless, I am a bit confused about how far his objections actually go for in this post he writes:

While I agree with this statement in principle, I object to the implied imprimatur this places upon homosexual couples who adopt children. With rare exception I am opposed to promoting adoptions by parents that do not have a male and female parenting role model. A child that has two parents of the same sex is being shortchanged in my view - even if they are celibate.At best it is a B’Dieved – just like a single parent family would be. If one has no choice that is one thing. But to suggest that less than the ideal should be ‘fully embraced’ is not something I can support.

Yet a bit less than a year ago (August 21, 2009) he wrote (HERE):

Is it halachicly permissible for homosexual couples to have and raise children? Is it a good idea?The answer to both those questions is probably yes -under certain conditions.

...So the idea of homosexual couples having their own child should not really be a problem – whether by natural means or by adoption. The question then arises: How? By what process do they achieve it? In the case of male homosexuals - do they get married to a woman just for procreative purposes even while living with a male partner? What about artificial insemination? Is that an option? Adoption? I do not see a problem with any of these options halachicly.

Psychologically the marriage option might be a bad choice. But if everyone is up front about who - and what - they really are and the marriage is only for procreative purposes it may not be so bad. ...The next question is what kind of family life will the child of a gay couple have? What if ‘Heather has two daddies’?At this point I would posit that female homosexual couples might not have as great a stigma as do male homosexual couples. Nor do they have the same halachic problems. So if ‘Heather has two mommies’ it may envisage a better outcome. ...On a halachic level though - I do not believe there is any real problem. And I don’t think the major Poskim have one either.

Now, of course, the easy answer is that in the August 2009 post, he never meant that it is "L'chatchila" but just as "b'diavad" as he writes here. But the tone of that post does not suggest it. He seems a lot closer to "full embrace" than he does here.

Whatever it is that he does "fully embrace" has another dimension. He laments the fact that no notable "right wing" Rabbi or Rosh Yeshiva has signed on to the proclamation. He wants to get them "on board". In his August 2009 post, he went further to fantasize that they are already on board. And this is what I really want to discuss.

Such a thing is never going to happen.

Now, in its time (August 29, 2009), I dealt with this at length and you can find the post here:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2009/08/nothing-wrong-withas-long-as.html

And for this occasion, I do not have too much to add to the eloquent comment of one ClooJew who, lulei d'mistefina, wrote:

There are three objections, lulei demistafina, that I can see Rabbonim—including YU's 34 Roshei Yeshiva, none of whom signed this letter—having to this letter.
One, Nothing happens in a vacuum. I think that most rabbonim from all stripes of the Orthodox world would agree with the content of most of this formal declaration. That does not mean they would agree that it should be formally declared.
By underscoring "our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories go beyond dignity and respect, and enter the grey zone toward legitimization. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the inherent nature of a public pronouncement is to overemphasize the facts it pronounces. This is what the activist agenda of the gay community thrives on. The reason for gay pride parades is not simply to announce but to publicize and promote.
Two, communal needs must not only be balanced with, but often take precedence over individual needs. Again, nothing happens in a vacuum. Publicly announcing oneself to be gay is unlike publicly announcing oneself to be a Yankees fan; it requires a response. It is a declaration waiting to be welcomed or rejected by the community. In a community that lives by a Torah which clearly states that homosexual behavior is an "abomination" punishable by death, such a statement cannot simply be overlooked.

Furthermore, a public revelation also unmasks the intentions of the homosexual. Would a heterosexual Orthodox Jew stand up and admit he likes to watch pornography (even if he claims to control himself)? A person who views his inclinations and behavior as non-halachic and immoral would keep it between himself, his rabbi, and God.

But I do want to add one other objection that those from the One Above camp would have (it really mirrors all of Mr. ClooJew's points, especially the third). Lulei d'mistafina, I felt there was one principle missing from the Statement (the 13th principle?!) and this is that the principles only discuss the sensitivity that we "straights" should have toward those who are "suffering" from this horrible (abominable?) affliction. What the proclamation does not say is that the homosexual must also respect the fact that the traditionalist heterosexual Jews does not want to look upon homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle by any measure and, as such, whatever homosexual tendencies are in place must be played down to the highest (lowest?) degree possible. In plain English it means - keep it under wraps! I really think, lulei d'mistafina, that this is the implication of Mr. ClooJew's third point and it is essential.

This proclamation comes across to me as a one-sided contract which enumerates the obligations of one party and absolves the other party of all obligations whatsoever. There is not a single word about how the homosexual who cannot control or conceal his "orientation" is supposed to deal with the community that is likewise struggling with this anomaly. The homosexual is the victim of "crossed wires" and has carte blanche to expose himself (itself?) for his weaknesses and the community has to tiptoe around him! No mutual obligations!

And here is where I want to get back to today's date. As I read Harry Maryles' blog dated July 28 and the link to the Statement Blog (created especially for this, apparently) also dated July 28 (though perhaps updated from July 22) I sit here in Jerusalem Ir Hakodesh on July 29 and read this "Statement of Principles" on the very day that a bunch of gay and lesbian perverts have nothing better to do than to make a public Pride parade through the heart of Yerushalayim! And they have done this and continue to do this year after year after year with the full knowledge that that this is the seat of Har Habayis and the Makom HaMikdash and that most of the population here is repulsed by it.

But they don't care. They are proud to be gay!

Now, we can rationalize that these are secular folks and religious Jews that are victims of SSA are not apt to be so audacious.

But then, on this very day, I read this newly released "Statement" from an "Orthodox" think tank (approved by Emes Ve-Emunah!) which tells me, as I sit here in Yerushalayim, how accepting we need to be to our SSA brethren, yet, not a word of responsibility to them and I say to myself: They couldn't pick a better time to release this proclamation??

Timing is everything!

Golden Oldies - Parshat Balak/Pinchas

2010-07-01T15:32:00.006+03:00

I haven't written in a bit. Some readers are starting to forget that I exist (which may actually be the case). Let's chalk it up to an extended visit to the real world. I am still too preoccupied to write new material but I do want to present some of the Golden Oldies from the first months of this blog back in 2008 (anybody remember those days?).

In the old days, I used to do what I called a Parsha Challenge. I would first present a puzzling issue from the Parsha - something that the classical meforshim seem to have overlooked - and a few days later I presented a proposed solution.

Now the link between Parshat Balak and Parshat Pinchas is the terrible debacle at Shittim where many of our ancestors (or our ancestors kin) met their end. Exactly how many were indeed executed during the episode?

The question was asked in this post:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2008/08/leftovers-from-yechezkels-shabbos-table.html

and, 3 days later, the solution was presented in this one:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2008/08/cleaning-up-leftovers-solution-to-last.html

Another fascinating discussion that centers in Parshat Pinchas was my discussion on TuM (it's not what you think!). Why on earth is this topic being discussed in this Parsha? This was the first Parsha Challenge that I ever posted in this blog. The problem was presented in this post:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2008/07/delicacies-from-yechezkels-shabbos.html

And the proposed solution was presented here:

http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2008/07/shabbos-table-follow-up.html

I do have some material for some up-to-date posts but it is very hard to find the time to write them up. In the meanwhile, have a great Shabbos!

Fools of the World - They're Still Here

2010-06-15T00:32:00.005+03:00

This post is an exact copy of a post that I wrote on October 15, 2008. Only the news link at the head of the post has been changed. Sadly, very sadly, nothing else has changed.

Re: Jerusalem Post Article - Court: No to haredi income benefit

The opening gemara in Masechet Avoda Zarah (2a) says:

In the future to come the Holy One shall bring a Torah scroll and set it in His lap and proclaim, “For each one who occupied himself with it, let him come and receive his reward.” Immediately all the nations of the world will gather and come in pandemonium…
The kingdom of Rome will enter before Him first…The Holy One says to them, “In what way have you involved yourselves?”. They will say before Him, “Master of the World! We installed many markets, we made many bathhouses, we amassed much silver and gold, and all this we did for no purpose other than to enable [the people of] Israel to busy themselves in Torah.” The Holy One says to them, “Fools of the world! All that you did, you did for your own purposes. You built marketplaces to situate harlots, bathhouses to adorn yourselves, and the silver and gold is actually Mine...”
The kingdom of Persia enters after them. The Holy One says to them, “In what way have you involved yourselves?”. They will say before Him, “Master of the World! We built many bridges, we conquered many metropolises, we waged many wars, and all this we did for no purpose other than to enable [the people of] Israel to busy themselves in Torah.” The Holy One says to them, “Fools of the world! All that you did, you did for your own purposes. You built bridges to collect from them tolls, you conquered cities to conscript the inhabitants and their property for your military campaigns, and, as for wars, I am the One who manipulates wars…"

I have oft-times reflected on this passage and noted that the great super powers of the world will line up to apply for this reward. Edom (the US and Europe) and Persia (Iran). No doubt Russia and China will also submit their applications.

And what about the State of Israel?

Will the State of Israel that tries so hard to be like all other nations, will the State of Israel also line up to ask for the great reward? And what claim will they make?

My guess is that the State of Israel will be right there clamoring away with the rest of the nations. And, as with the rest of the nations, HKBH will ask them, “In what way have you involved yourselves?” And they will say before Him, “Master of the World! We gave military deferments to those who could prove that they are studying Torah. And we made sure that they will not be able to legally work as long as they received these deferments. We gave child allowances for the children of your people - although we halved the child allowances at the same time as bread and milk doubled. And we set aside a special budgetary allotment for Torah schools - to make it look like we are giving them extra money when in truth we are giving them less since we didn't think that they deserve the same basic funding as State schools and so we made sure they didn't get it. And all this we did for no purpose other than to enable [the people of] Israel to busy themselves in Torah..."

And what will happen? Will the Holy One smile and heap infinite reward on the State of Israel for their sincere efforts or, as to the rest of the nations, will He say to them, "Fools of the world! All that you did, you did for your own purposes..."?

Just don't kick the sukka on the way out.

Cops and Rabbis

2010-06-11T00:10:00.010+03:00

I received the following letter from one of my fans about 2 days ago:

Dear R. Hirschman,

http://aiwac.blogspot.com/2010/06/murder-of-mind-on-disillusionment.html

Here's a recent post from one of my old college buddies on Facebook. I hate to waste your precious learning time (so feel free to delete it and I won't follow up), but what the heck is this guy's (the blog's author) beef about? Is this another example of a disgruntled modern Orthodox, sick of Chareidi ('Yeshivish') people telling them what to do??

This is a letter worth answering "online". So here goes:

Dear One-of-my-Fans, LOY"T

Thank you for your letter.

The answer to your question is, "Yes." Your buddy suffers from a very common condition which I call the Korach Syndrome. The Korach Syndrome can be rephrased as the I-have-no-problem-with-G-d-but-can't-deal-with-his-little-helpers-who-keep-reminding-me-about-what-He-wants-from-us Syndrome. Your buddy says this himself in almost the exact same words in the last line of his post. And I quote:

So I remain an O Jew, with deep faith in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and none in the Rabbinic/Yeshivish elite.

Now, it might be that in the olden days when we were all on better terms with G-d and we had real Kohanim with the Urim and Tumim, we didn't have to rely so much on His emissaries. Today, however, G-d and us don't seem to be on speaking terms and so we have no choice but to take advice from those who have spent lots of time reading up on His rule book. Some folks - um, actually I mean lots and lots of folks - have a very hard time with this.

But this is really nothing new.

I find it somewhat auspicious that your letter is coming on this particular week - Parshat Korach. It was just the sentiment expressed by your buddy that prompted me to write chapter 8 of my book - Cops and Rabbis (or, Dear Kindly Rabbi Krupnik) in which Korach (and his friends) are the main characters. So, if you really want to understand what this guy's beef is about, it may help to review the chapter.

I looked over the chapter myself to see if I could condense it and post it here l'chvod your letter and l'chvod Parshat Korach but I didn't think that I could pull out more than perhaps 20% before it loses its zing, so it doesn't really pay to condense it at all. I decided that I will post the whole chapter. It is actually one of the most powerful chapters in the book.

So here I present to all Chapter 8 - Cops and Rabbis. And let's daven for your old college buddy that he doesn't get swallowed up when things start to rumble!

Cops and Rabbis_Scribd

Again, thanks for writing and have a good Shabbos.

Chezkel

Harav Mordechai Eliyahu, ZT"L - Finding a Body that Wasn't Lost

2010-06-08T21:14:00.005+03:00

Harav Hagaon Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, ZY"A, was nifter yesterday. Like thousands and thousands of others, I went to the funeral in Kiryat Moshe (it's actually walking distance). He was a true Gadol and a worthy leader of Klal Yisroel.

Much of the Jewish news media is mourning his passing and writing up tributes to his gadlus. There is an inspiring write-up in today's Arutz Sheva web site. They chose to relate a story about the power of tefillah and the plight of an agunah. Here is the story as they tell it:

When Rabbi Eliyahu first became a dayan in Be’er Sheva, in 1957, his was the only rabbinical court in the entire south, between Eilat and Be’er Sheva. On his first day on the job, he saw a woman standing outside, praying from a small Book of Psalms. She remained outside all day. The next day, the rabbi saw the same thing, and the next day again, and so on. Finally, he asked the court secretary to ask her to come in. He asked her why she stood outside and prayed all day, and she related in all innocence: ‘I came on Aliyah [immigration to Israel] from Morocco by myself, and they sent me to Be’er Sheva. I asked where the closest rabbinical court was, I was told it was here, and so here I am.’

He asked her, “What are you praying for?” and the woman said, “My husband in Morocco was a taxi driver, and a week after we were married, at the end of the Sheva Brachot [the seven days of wedding festivities], he crashed - and his body was never found... After a while, I went to the rabbis to be declared a widow so that I could remarry, but they said that without a body, they could not be certain that he was dead – and so I remained a ‘chained woman’ [aguna, unable to marry]. But when I came to Israel, I had faith that what the rabbinical courts in Morocco could not accomplish [in permitting me to remarry], the courts in Israel would be able to do.”

Rabbi Eliyahu asked, “So why did you remain outside the court? Why didn’t you come in to the dayanim?”

The woman said, “Who are you? I pray to G-d, not to you!”

Rabbi Eliyahu immediately took up her case. He took all her papers and went to the Baba Sali, who told him of his brother, the Baba Haki, a leading rabbi in the Israeli city of Ramle who was familiar with all those engaged in Jewish burials in Morocco. Rabbi Eliyahu traveled to Ramle, where the Baba Haki told him, “There were only two Jewish kavranim [people engaged in burials] in Morocco, and both have since come to Israel. One lives in Dimona and one lives in Kiryat Ata [near Haifa].”

Rabbi Eliyahu said, “I live in the south, so I might as well try Dimona.” He went to the exact address supplied to him by the Baba Haki – only to find that the man’s family was sitting shiva for him; he had died just a few days earlier.

Quite disappointed, Rabbi Eliyahu went in anyway, shared some words of Torah and solace with the mourning family and friends, and explained why he was there. Immediately, a man jumped up and said, “I am the other kavran, and I know that story! I was the one who buried the taxi driver!”

Rabbi Eliyahu asked him to accompany come him to other rabbis, who questioned him and determined that his testimony was acceptable. Rabbi Eliyahu convened the rabbinical court, and the woman was declared “unchained” and permitted to remarry.

“This is the power of prayer,” Rabbi Eliyahu later said, “both hers and mine.”

On the surface, it is a very inspiring story. Nevertheless, something doesn't fit. I posted a comment on the Arutz-7 web site (it hasn't been posted yet) which expresses my bewilderment. here is what I wrote:

Something is strange about the story of the taxi driver. What does it mean that "his body was never found" if one of the official kavranim of Morocco buried him?
This implies that the body was found, a Jewish person buried him and he knew who he was burying. So why was his bride and the other rabannim of Morocco not aware of it when it happened?
There are a few holes in this story.

If this story goes back to 1957, I highly doubt there is anybody around who can fill in the holes and make this story more believable. In the meatime, I have to file it in my story repository under Questionable (if not Implausible).

Aside from this, I wonder how many seconds are left on the Baba Sali watch and...is it running?

Saifa v'Safra and Nachal Chareidi

2010-05-24T15:02:00.010+03:00

The gemara in Avoda Zara (17b) talks about Rabi Elazar ben Parta who was captured by the Romans along with Rabi Chanina ben Tradyon. The Romans accused him of being both a thief and a scholar. (The gemara implies that he ran a Gemach - a free loan fund - and as such, the Romans suspected monetary mischief). As his defense Rabi Elazar ben Parta exclaimed a cryptic statement: 　
　
אי סייפא לא ספרא ואי ספרא לא סייפא

If one engages in the profession of the sword סייפא (i.e., thievery), one cannot engage in the profession of the book ספרא and if one engages in the profession of the book, he cannot engage in the profession of the sword.

This is the simple explanation of Rabi Elazar's statement (it got him off, by the way!). But some commentators (notably the Sefer HaAruch in the entry for סייף ) maintain that the Romans were supposed to understand it one way and we are supposed to understand it another way:

If there is a sword אי סייפא, it means we have let go of the "book" לא ספרא, but if we adhere to the book, there will be no need for the sword.

The Sefer HaAruch suggests that this is meant by the pasukim in Yeshaya 1:19-20 that we read on Shabbos Chazon:

אִם תֹּאבוּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם טוּב הָאָרֶץ תֹּאכֵלוּ: וְאִם-תְּמָאֲנוּ וּמְרִיתֶם חֶרֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ כִּי פִּי ה' דבר:

If you want and you listen, the best of the land you will devour. ספרא
If you refuse and you rebel, by the sword you will be devoured, for the word of Hashem has spoken. סייפא

Well, last week was the swearing in ceremony (Tekes Hashba'ah) for the March, 2010 recruits of the Netzach Yehuda troop in the Kfir betallion (Nachal Haredi). Of course, this featured my Yaakov.

As one of the Rabanim of the betallion (Harav Yoel Schwartz) spoke out, the Nachal Chareidi plays the game both ways and makes sure to equip the men with both the סייפא (M-16) and the ספרא a Koren Tanach. The highlight of the ceremony is when the men are issued the סייפא and the ספרא .

The ceremony for Netzach Yehuda takes place in the Ammunition Hill National Park (we reserve the Kotel for סידרא - davening).

We went out there with the gantza mishpacha (minus two boys who are in full time ספרא ) and beheld the ceremony. I thought it was very inspiring and that everybody should see a Nachal Haredi Tekes Hashba'ah whether or not they know any of the soldiers. It was also a bit amusing because a lot of things went wrong and there were many crossed signals. Yaakov told me that they only rehearsed the ceremony twice and that it wasn't adequate. Understatement.

The enclosed video of the סייפא and the ספרא ceremony was taken by my brother. Yaakov is the one in the center of the threesome (who looks the most serious). His formation fell apart on the retreat march because the front guy (the one to the left) started the forward march on the wrong signal. Then the other two guys had to recover and catch up.

Looks like they could use a little more discipline!

(If you have trouble viewing the embedded video, click HERE for download.)

The One World Economy

2010-05-20T12:34:00.009+03:00

HM-m-m-m-m.

It seems my previous post about the "findings" of the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel was off-the-mark enough for Rabbi Harry Maryles to take out the time to set me straight. Evidently, it's not about statistics, it's about poverty.

And from his perspective, he is right. But from the perspective of the few people who have followed my writings and understand the hashkafos of the chareidi world - the ameilim b'Torah - as I have described them, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a different set of issues. It's not about poverty and it's not even about statistics.

It's about Emes and its about Emunah.

I will deal with the Emunah first.

The Emunah that we have is the Torah's perception of social economics and this does indeed address the issue of poverty. But, more accurately, it addresses something else Rabbi Maryles emphasized in his post - what is it that G-d wants?

I don't know if there is any point in discussing the issue of poverty. There is nothing new to say about it. I have discussed it so many times in so many previous posts. Evidently, it's a much different perspectve than the secular-minded world - which includes Rabbi Maryles and Professor Dan Ben-David - can relate to. It is based on a few principles as follows:

The learning class is going to be needy. Period. This is for their benefit and for ours (for this discussion I will include myself in the non-learning class). The benefits that they enjoy I discussed in detail in a very recent post. The benefits that we enjoy (if we choose to) I discussed at length in several other posts (HERE and HERE).
G-d wants us to implement a highly interdependent system so as both classes can mutually reap the full scope of benefits.
The "takers" are actually the givers because it is their ameilus that brings us sustenance. Only, that the sustenance that they bring is delivered to us (the mach-"givers") first. Our job is to forward to them their share.
Since we all stand to benefit from this system (and the "takers" are in actuality the "givers"), there is no limit to how many people can or should be on the "receiving end" since, as I said, that they are really on the supply end. In fact, the more "receiving end/givers" there are, the better off we are. The more we receive for ourselves.

There is really no such thing as a chareidi community. Chareidi means living up to the standards of the Torah (as explained in my book) and all Jews are required to meet the standards. Non-chareidim are chareidim who don't understand that they are supposed to uphold Im B'chukosai telechu (and the rest). Thus, when we say that G-d wants the working class to be the support base for the learning class, He doesn't mean "Orthodox" Jews of which there are probably no more than 2 million in the world, He means all Jews of which there are about 12 million in the world. (In truth, the 2 million is more than enough to get the job done.

I have repeated these principles on numerous occasions but they can only be appreciated by people who take the words of the Torah and Chazal at face value. People who believe Moshe Rabbenu when he says (Devarim 8:3):

וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת-הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַעְתָּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְמַעַן הוֹדִיעֲךָ כִּי לֹא עַל-הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם כִּי עַל-כָּל-מוֹצָא פִי ה' יחיה האדם:

HKBH can send us mahn to eat if He wants. In our day, He doesn't allow us to subsist by supernatural means but He is sending us the mahn all the same. He requires us to seek "physical" means to find our bread but no matter what we do, we only get our עומר לגולגולת. "The one who collects more does not have a surplus and the one who collects less does not have a shortfall." (Shmos 16:18). And also by people who believe that for those who keep the mitzvos, there will always be what to eat: נער הייתי וגם זקנתי ולא ראיתי צדיק נעזב וזרעו מבקש לחם.

This is what we call Emunah. Yet, Rabbi Maryles and Professor Ben-David do not subscribe to these principles.

Oh, and one more principle:

The future of our children lies in their adherence to Torah and Yiras Shamayim and not to their earning power. We are more concerned about their welfare in the eternal world than their welfare in this temporary one.

So this is our Emunah. Poverty is a test and an opportunity both for the "haves" and for the "have nots". The "poverty" of the ameilim b'Torah is our opportunity get a piece of the action. And even so, at the end of the day, there doesn't need to be any real poverty. Chazal gave us a "system". It's up to us.

And so many of us pass up the opportunity!

That's not what G-d wants. G-d wants all Jews to be chareidim l'dvar Hashem. He wants all Jews to contribute a mere 10% of their net income to help support the learning class and to help boost their own net income.

But, the non-chareidi Jews don't play along. They are too busy reading Harry Maryles's blog and reading the hawkish statistics from the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel and are convincing themselves that (1) a majority of members of the chareidi world are abjectly destitute, (2) this is twice as much as a generation ago, (3) they (i.e., Rabbi Maryles and his chevra) are entitled to judge whether any learning can be called "mediocre" and thus unworthy of support, and (4) ushering the few Jews who can linger in the beis midrash to the exit is the best way of combating this well documented poverty.

And so, what is the Emes?

The Emes is that it is only the working class chareidim who implement the system. And to a large extent, it works. With a mere 10%, we contribute heavily toward the learning class, and, lo and behold, it hasn't been making us any poorer.

Both the Taub Center and Harry Maryles seem to be complaining that the Jews of Eretz Yisrael are not financially independent. The numbers are not important. It's the picture that they want to paint with the numbers. They are predicting some kind of a "crash" and pretending that it is twice as bad as it was a generation ago.

But a generation ago it was worse than it is now, and a generation before that it was even worse than that.

Ever since the fall of Beitar, the land of Israel has been a place of financial hardship. By the decree of our exile, the Jewish people were required to sojourn throughout the four corners of the Earth and HKBH gave us a special gift of survival. מלמד שהיו מצויינים שם . Wherever we have gone, we have been outstanding. We have been the leaders in commerce and industry and we were blessed with success and affluence. Except in Eretz Israel. HKBH didn't want us coming back too quick so He made sure that there would be no wellspring of wealth. And that it would require a great deal of mesiras nefesh to live in Eretz Yisrael. But the Jewish people always had to have a remnant in Eretz Yisrael. And so, many centuries ago, the Jewish people of the diaspora took upon themselves to support the brave Yishuv in Eretz Yisroel. In this way, the Jews of the diaspora were able to be מקיים the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel from many miles away.

In the early 1800s this sytem of support became more modernized and it was given a name: Chalukah. Perhaps the name was modeled after the original distribution of Terumah to the Kohanim in the time of the Beis Hamikdash. The gemara calls it: החולק בבית הגרנות the distribution from the grain silos. The funds were managed by the various Kollelim al shem R' Meir Baal Haness: Kollel Chibas Yerushalyim, Kollel Shomrei HaChomos, Kollel America, and others.

The concept of the Jews of the diaspora supporting the Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael still exists today and it will continue to exist until the true geula. It is the network of the religious Jews to the diaspora Jews throughout the world that keeps the economy alive, and not just for the chareidim. The State itself relies on foreign funds to stay afloat. They have always relied on Jewish philanthropies and State of Israel bonds for ready cash and are still handcuffed by their reliance on American foreign aid. But they also need the economy of the Chareidim. The average chiloni (or American) doesn't understand this, but if all the chareidim in Israel would be rounded up and "sent back to Poland", the economy of the state would go into a tailspin.

For as much as they put up a show that they are so generous to the chareidim, they benefit far more than they give. Because the chareidim are magnets of foreign money.

We can start with the Yeshivos. The great Yeshivos of Mir, Ponovizh, Chevron, and Brisk attract students from the four corners of the earth, most of them bringing piles of dollars, pounds, and euros to spend and taking very little from the state. They remain in Kollel and and bring in the money from their well off parents who come to visit and spend more. The yeshivos themselves subsist on tuitions and donations from overseas that far outshadow the subsidies of the State. The same goes for the great Mosdos of Belz, Ger, Vizhnitz, Tchebin, Slonim, and Chabad. Imagine if these institutions did not exist, where the Israeli economy would be?

Now let's add to the pile the great Baal Teshuva yeshivos of Ohr Sameach, Aish HaTorah, Neve Yerushalayim and many smaller ones. The Kiruv organizations are an industry in itself. Aside from saving many Jewish souls, they bring massive foreign donations to this country and the students themselves spend their dollars and euros and those of their parents. As a bonus, some of these students who have higher educations stay on within the chardeidi community (and society at large) and provide professional services and revenues.

After that, let's talk about Judaica and tashmishei kedusha, Sifrei Kodesh and STA"M. And of course, Esrogim and hadassim (Lulavim are regulated by the government) produced here and sold here and abroad.

The shops on Malchei Yisrael and Meah Shearim bring in so much foreign money that it is worthwhile for the city to provide brand new garbage cans on a daily basis.

Now, let's take into account the staggering amount of money over the decades that the chareidi community has pulled in from abroad to pay for the real estate that they live in and use as shuls, schools and yeshivos. There is no HUD in Israel. No subsidized housing in the haredi centers. And it is the realtionship of the local chareidim with those abroad that saves the government from having to provide it.

And the state gets a good deal from the chareidim in other areas too. Even though everyone likes to complain about that chareidim get educational funding and don't teach a "core curriculum", the education expenditure is still less per capita than those who attend mamlachti schools. We save the state money. Of course people complain that most charedim don't join the army. From a social standpoint there is what to debate, but from an economic perspective it saves the state a bundle. Do you know what every soldier costs the state? The chiloni who goes to the state schools and then the army and then the stae subsidized colleges cost the state tons of money up front. The expectation is that they will produce a high return on the investment but this is not always the case. Conversely, the chareidi who goes to the less subsidized chareidi school, doesn't go to the army and state colleges cost the state a lot less up front. The conventional wisdom (from the Taub Center) is that then they are permanent complete parasites, but many of us do just fine without a college education and those that need assistance get more from the chareidi support system than from the state.

And now we will add some social services that the chareidim provide on a volunteer basis thus saving either the state or the consumer (secular or otherwise) from having to pay for them. These include ambulance services (Hatzalah, Chovesh Har Nof and other local branches), medical equipment (Yad Sarah), referrals (Ezra LeMarpeh), and disaster relief (Zaka). Of course we can add all the general charities (Yad Eliezer, Chasdei Naami, Vaad HaRabanim) that reduce the need for state welfare.

Can you imagine the financial state of the state without the charedim?

And after all this, there is still a limited but potent modern trend for the chareidim of Eretz Yisroel to be more cosmopolitan now that they are powerful enough to do it on their terms. Thus the success of Nachal Haredi and a blossoming of chareidi vocational schools both innovations of the past decade. As such, I feel that, proportionately, there is less dependence on the "chaluka" than there was 3 decades back.

The megillah about the Chaluka and about the "magnetism of foreign money" is meant to point out something that the Taub Center - and I daresay, Rabbi Maryles - do not understand. There is no such thing as the Israeli chareidi economy. The chareidi economy in Israel is and always has been totally interactive with the chareidi economy of the diaspora. The chareidim of the diaspora are far from destitute and, for some Heavenly ordained reason, the chareidim of Israel are. But the two economies interact and balance each other out. For the chareidim, it's a one world economy!

That's how it works now and that's how it worked 3 decades ago and that's how it worked 3 centuries ago. The "system" was never flawless but the system has always functioned. Mr. Emes Ve-Emunah can participate in it or he can disassociate himself from it.

But reports of a "crash" are greatly exaggerated.

If Figures Don't Lie, Who Does?

2010-05-17T13:25:00.010+03:00

64% of all statistics are made up! And that's a conservative estimate. 26% of the population actually think that the true number is higher although 47% think the number is lower. *

Now I can usually tell if a statistic is accurate or not because I believe in Hirshman's Law of Statistical Probability. Hirshman's Law of Statistical Probability states:

When people claim statistical figures on information that is next to impossible (improbable) to obtain, it is probably bunk.

And this is true 87% of the time. Of course, if the subject is the Chareidi world, it is true 98% of the time. Why?

Because 76% of the people you ask will not have an inkling on how to define what is a chareidi.

I will get back to this point shortly but first, a little insight as to what statistics is all about. And for this, we can learn a lot from our Amaleiki cousins (Yimach shmam v'zichram).

In the sanctity of my most intimate chambers, I am working through a book that is fascinating as it is tediously boring titled IBM and the Holocaust. The book discusses how the Nazi campaign to annihilate the Jews could not have been so efficiently executed without the technology for census and statistics that was provided all throughout the war from American based IBM.

Here is a brief excerpt from the introduction:

Mankind barely noticed when the concept of massively organized information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction. The unique igniting event was the most fateful day of the last century, January 30, 1933, the day Adolf Hitler came to power. Hitler and his hatred of the Jews was the ironic driving force behind this intellectual turning point. But his quest was greatly enhanced and energized by the ingenuity and craving for profit of a single American company and its legendary, autocratic chairman. That company was International Business Machines, and its chairman was Thomas J. Watson.

I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.

The answer: IBM Germany's census operations and similar advanced people counting and registration technologies. IBM was founded in 1898 by German inventor Herman Hollerith as a census tabulating company. Census was its business. But when IBM Germany formed its philosophical and technologic alliance with Nazi Germany, census and registration took on a new mission. IBM Germany invented the racial census--listing not just religious affiliation, but bloodline going back
generations. This was the Nazi data lust. Not just to count the Jews--but to identify them.
©2001-2010 Edwin Black
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted here under Article 17 of Intl. Copyright Law.

So we note that to compile statistical information there are two primary stipulations:

An accurate method of counting - In other words, you have to know how to count
Identifying the subject - In other words, you have to know what to count

Let's illustrate. Suppose we want to know if redheads are more prone to committing murders than non-redheads. We will need three things:

A definition of "murder"
A population of such murderers
A definition of a "redhead"

Now, the first 2 items may be relatively easy to come by. First, let's define murder any which way and then check the prisons to see how many inmates were convicted for whatever we defined as murder. After that, all we need to do is tabulate how many of them are redheads and check their proportion against the national average. Simple!

But, what's a redhead? Does a reddish brown count? Does a strawberry blonde count? Is it somebody who was nicknamed "Gingi"? Do they need freckles to go with it or not? What about somebody who used to be red but is now brown (or gray or bald)?

This assignment may be tougher than we think.

When it comes to compiling statistics about the chareidim we face similar challenges. And I will repeat what I said earlier that 83% of the population has no idea on how to define a chareidi. I wrote about this at length in my book.

In my book, I discussed that two of the most widely acclaimed academic ethnographers, Professor Samuel C. Heilman of Queens College and Professor Noah J. Efron of Bar Ilan University, both wrote complete volumes about the "Haredi" entity without presenting a definition anywhere in their books. I was able to excuse Prof. Heilman for it because he was not comparing the chareidim to another population. But Prof. Noah J. Efron I could not excuse. Here is what I wrote:

In contrast to my stated vindications of the other authors, Prof. Efron cannot be excused for overlooking this essential issue. This is because in the course of his work, Efron is compelled to play the numbers game. Hence, innocently tucked away on page 90, in the course of his discussion on educational funding, Efron casually declares one of the most pivotal statements of that section of his thesis as an undisputed established fact, “Haredim represent approximately 7 percent of the population…” [emphasis mine – YH]. This chapter is not the place to deal with the integrity of this figure,[4] yet it escapes me as to how we can assess the quantity of chareidim if we are not apprised as to what constitutes a chareidi to begin with?[5]

Pay special attention to footnote [4]. Here is the text of the footnote:

[4]Suffice it to say that the Israeli government has not conducted an official census since 1995 and the next one is scheduled for 2008. The best current indicator that we have is the electorate. In the two previous elections (2003 and 2006) the combined constituency of the two chareidi parties, UTJ and SHAS, were 16 and 18 seats respectively. Even the lower figure reflects representation of over 13 percent of the population. Bear in mind that the chareidim [exclusively] include some factions that maintain that it is Halachically forbidden to vote! Additionally, Efron himself notes on the following page that the chareidi population is child-heavy which means that a greater proportion of the chareidi population is below voting age. Also note that Efron writes on page 145 that “the purchasing power of the Hareidi community … is somewhere along the line of 15-20 percent of the population.” Not bad purchasing power for a mere 7 percent, the poorest to boot!
After I wrote all this, I reached page 242 where the percentage magically changed to “one in ten Israelis”. That’s a 43% increase over the 7 percent on page 90.

Seven per cent, ten per cent...what's the difference? (I know- 43%!)

Let's check out footnote [5]:

[5]This same problem haunts us to the very conclusion of his book. On page 273, 2 pages before the finish line, he writes, “…according to Boston University economist Eli Berman, for almost 25 years, rates of childbirth among the ultra-Orthodox have been 2 ½ to 3 ½ times as great as secular birthrates. Yet… the populations of ultra-Orthodox relative to secular have grown far less than childbirth rates would suggest. To parse this data accurately would require complicated analysis and the collection of new data…” Don’t you think it might also require a clear definition as to what counts as ultra-Orthodox? It’s been 273 pages and we still haven’t got one.

Don't hold your breath for one, either.

My point is that even before you know how to do your counting, you have to know what to count. The Nazis knew this. Efron doesn't.

This brings me to the point of this post. One of my favorite blogs seems to be making much ado about a report published by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. He is obviously taking the whole dessert made out of artificial ingredients and swallowing it whole. Then copying the recipe and serving it to all his unsuspecting guests.

The Taub Center makes a number of scurrilous (or is that spurious?) claims. (1) One is that the percentage of haredi men between the ages of 35-54 who are non-employed is 65%. Secondly, this is double the amount from three decades ago. It also mentioned something about welfare payments going up 400% in three decades and juxtaposed it as if it is related.

Now, Hirshman's Law of Statistical Probability cannot sustain these claims. Especially since (1) a recent finding was released by the Central Bureau of Statistics with noticably different figures (2) it is doubtful that there can be accurate data about the haredim from three decades back because, three decades ago, the term "Haredi" was not the umbrella term that is used today and (3) there are barely any welfare payments here in Israel (though there are numerous welfare services).

I noticed a few other holes in this study and even commented about it (first HERE and then HERE). But I suppose as much as there are chareidi apologists, there are at least 58% more silly statistics apologists. "Oh for sure," everybody seems to claim, "they must have used very scientific methods of compiling their data."

So, I said to myself, why not check this out? So I contacted the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel (a local call). I dialed the extension for Prof. Dan Ben-David but I reached Hedva Elmackias who told me that Prof. Ben-David is in a meeting. I requested an interview with Prof. Ben-David and Hedva suggested that I email to her my credentials and my issues. I was only so happy to comply. (She also suggested that I check out the complete report which is available on their web site. I did that as well.)

To follow is an exact copy of the email (except for the cell phone number):

Letter to Taub Center_051610

Well I did indeed receive a reply from the Taub Center and here it is:

Dear Mr. Hirshman,
These are the answers Prof. Ben-David prepared for your questions:

Answers: The data source for the study on employment is the Labor Force Survey conducted by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. Need to ask them how they conduct their surveys. The whole issue of how haredim are defined in our study is explained in detail in the labor chapter of the book, including the pros and cons of our approach. In the Hebrew report, the graph on page 40 was translated directly into English in the press release. Hence, the Hebrew word "tashlumei" is translated into the English "Payments".

All the Best,

Hedva Elmackias
Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel

One of the more interesting things that I learned from this response is that the Taub Center did not conduct an independent survey but was merely analyzing data that was compiled by the CBS. That wouldn't be too bad... if not that CBS reported different figures!

As for the issue of defining "Haredim", the "detailed explanation" she referred to must have been inadvertently cut out of the final draft, as i couldn't find it. Incidentally, CBS's definition for Haredi is "those who call themselves haredi". This is actually a fair definition because most people who consider themselves part of the haredi community usually are. Nevertheless, this forces us to classify the category as subjective rather than based on specific measurable properties (scientific or empirical). Furthermore it very much complicates the idea of comparing data from three decades ago even if there is any.

Another interesting thing was that their reference to Welfare was not a reference to Chapter 7 of the report which discussed Welfare but did not use the word "payment", but rather it referred to a 3 page segment from Chapter 1 which did, in fact use the word "payment". Only problem is that it doesn't use the term "Welfare".

I noted these issues in my response to them for more clarification. Here it is:

Letter to Taub Center2_051710

That was a mere 24 hours ago and I haven't heard from them since. Based on past experience, there is a 97.8% chance that I am not going to hear from them again. And I think that I can already say that Professor Dan Ben-David is declining to be interviewed.

I don't know if anybody has learned anything from this essay. I can tell you that 68% of readers gave up after the fourth paragraph and, from the remainder, 53% will still swallow anything they're fed.

But I can tell you one thing - 100% of studies like this are what we call "chaval al haz'man".

*All statistics for this essay were painstakingly compiled by the Hirshman Institute for Common Sense, a very small grassroots organization in Jerusalem.

Shimu D'Var Hashem: The Art of Listening - The Chareidi of Yeshaya

2010-05-07T16:42:00.012+03:00

Yes, folks, it's that time of year again - Parshas Behar - Bechukosai where One Above and Seven Below comes to life. Before anything else, I want to provide for the newer readers links to some of the great posts from last year.

For Parshas Behar we have the analysis of Hetter Mechira at:

Ki Li HaAretz - This Land is My Land - Eminent Domain

and for Parshat Bechukosai we have the classic

The Secret of Parshat Bechukosai which includes Yaakov's Story

And for those who are interested, Yaakov is indeed in Nachal Chareidi and is doing quite well, בלע"ה.

For now, I want to zero in on an excerpt from my pilot chapter with a discussion that was partially inspired by the divrei kvushim of Harav Hagaon Asher Zelig Weiss, Shlita from this week's shiur in Har Nof.

I have always maintained that the true definition of chareidi - and the one that those who are proud to call themselves chareidi lay claim to - is the definition provided by Yeshaya HaNavi who introduced the term. And what exactly did Yeshaya say?

שמעו דבר ה' החרדים אל דברו

Hear the word of G-d, those of you who are anxious toward His word...

Here is how I wrote it in the book (pp. 49-50):

I think that if one really wants to know what a chareidi is, the first thing to do is to consult with the one who coined the term – the prophet Isaiah. If I remember correctly from the Introduction, a chareidi is one who is anxious to hear the Word of G d which, at first glance, would seem to indicate one who is anxious to do what G d wants.

As simple as this may be, it doesn’t really work in practice. This is because anybody and everybody who claims to be religious is convinced that they are doing precisely what G d wants. Be it the Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Masorati Jew, any flavor of Orthodox Jew and even religious non-Jews. Everybody is certain that everything he does is just hunky-dory with G d.

But if we take a closer look at the words of the prophet, we may notice something a bit more profound. It’s not so much that we do what G d wants as much as it is that we make it our business to know what it is that G d wants us to do. The prophet is talking about somebody who is anxious to hear what G d has to say; somebody who is listening to what G d wants.

These are the chareidim.

Being a Jew isn't easy. You know why? Because before we do anything else, we have to know what to do. And in order to know what to do, we have to listen. Listen to G-d. And listening is very hard.

Those of us who are married know how hard it is to listen! I have been taking extensive training to do marriage counseling. And what is the most common problem in marriage that brings couples running to counselors?

Miscommunication!

Do people not know how to communicate?

Of course, they do. They communicate loud and clear. Sometimes so loud that the whole neighborhood can pick up the communication. The problem is seldom in the transmission. It's in the reception. It is very difficult to listen.

And why is it so difficult to listen? It is because HKBH in His infinite wisdom gave us, as part of our anatomy, barriers that prevent us from listening. These are our ears.

Yes, you heard me right.

Ears are excellent instruments for hearing but not much good for listening. Because we don't listen with our ears. We listen with our hearts. The problem is that the only way for words to get to our hearts is through our ears. They are the sentries that filter out everything we hear. Whenever the ears hear something they must decide what to do with what they've heard. What they do is they check the switchboard to see which circuits are open. If the circuits to the heart happen to be open, they can forward the data there. But usually that circuit is blocked. So it looks for the next open circuit. That is usually the Recycle Bin.

And the words never reach our hearts.

So a true chareidi is one who can listen to the Word of G-d. It means that he has the circuits to his heart in On mode. He has an open heart. A heart that listens. A לב שומע .

I always say that a chareidi is one who is mekayem אם בחקותי תלכו . The prophet Yeshaya says it means one who listens to the Word of G-d. Says Harav Asher Weiss, Shlita, they are the same thing.

How so?

Because אם בחקותי תלכו means to be עמלים בתורה . And what does עמלים בתורה mean?

Says the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (6:4):

כך הִיא דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה: פַּת בַּמֶּלַח תֹּאכֵל, וּמַיִם בַּמְּשׁוּרָה תִּשְׁתֶּה, וְעַל הָאָרֶץ תִּישָׁן, וְחַיֵּי צַעַר תִּחְיֶה וּבַתּוֹרָה אַתָּה עָמֵל; וְאִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶֹה כֵן, "אַשְׁרֶיךָ וְטוֹב לָךְ" (תהלים קכח, ב) אַשְׁרֶיךָ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְטוֹב לָךְ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

Such is the manner of Torah: One must [be willing to] eat only bread with salt, and drink water by ration, and sleep on the ground, and live a life of discomfort, and in the Torah he is toiling...

To acquire Torah, one must minimize his indulgence in luxuries and creature comforts. These things stand in the way of Torah.

There are two ways of understanding this. The simple explanation is that luxuries and comforts do not come by themselves. One must put in effort to acquire them or the means to obtain them. For things that cost money, one must toil - work long hours - to amass the money to afford nice things. And there is only so much toil available. If his toil goes toward earthly pleasures it cannot be applied to Torah and so he will never acquire Torah. The pleasures will be fleeting and will not give him long-term satisfaction, so not only will he be unworthy for the delights of the next world, but he will be dissatisfied even in this world. He will lose both worlds.

Conversely, if he applies his toil to Torah and forgoes worldly pursuits, he will be satisfied with simple pleasures in this world (which are abundant) and will merit the delights of the next world as well.

But there is another explanation as to why one must eschew the pleasures of this world to acquire Torah. The pleasures of this world close the circuits to the heart.

We see this in the gemara in Shabbos 147b. The gemara discusses a place called Diyumeset that had wonderful healing waters and another place called Progiyatha that had exceptional wine. The gemara comments that the wine of Progiyatha and the water of Diyumeset stunted the ten tribes. Rashi explains that "they were pleasure seekers and they indulged in these (luxuries) and they did not indulge in Torah study and so they fell into decadence." And then the gemara tells of the following strange tale:

Rabi Elazar ben Arach went to there and he was drawn to them (i.e., to the wine and the bathing - Rashi) and his Torah was dislodged from him. When he returned to his home town he was called up to the Torah reading. He was supposed to read החדש הזה לכם (This month shall be for you...) and instead he read החרש היה לבם (Their hearts were made deaf...). The Rabbis prayed on his behalf and his Torah knowledge was restored.

What is the significance of this strange term: החרש היה לבם - Their hearts were made deaf?

Says Harav Weiss that when King Solomon first assumed his tenure as king of Israel, HKBH appeared to him in a dream and asked him what special gift he wishes for. King Solomon replied (Melachim I 3:9): And if you may give your servant a לב שמע - a heart that listens - to judge your nation...

A לב שמע - a heart that listens. A heart that understands.

Says Harav Weiss, if there is such a thing as a לב שמע there must be also such a thing as a לב חרש - a heart that is deaf. Rabi Elazar ben Arach found the לב חרש . A deaf heart is found in one who is drawn to the pleasures of this world, to the waters of Diyumeset and the wine of Progiyatha. For the pleasures of the flesh close the circuits of the heart from being able to hear the Word of G-d.

And so, if one subsists on bread and salt and meager water and applies his strength to the toil of Torah - ובתורה אתה עמל - then he can avoid the לב חרש and be worthy of a לב שמע , a heart that can hear the Word of G-d.

He can be what Yeshaya Hanavi calls a chareidi!

A chareidi is one who can hear the word of G-d, and a non-chareidi is one who cannot. Even one who does mitzvos, if he is not עמל בתורה , if he does not distance himself from the pleasures of this world, he closes his heart from hearing.

And so, the Tochacha begins: ואם לא תשמעו לי - If you do not listen to me...

If you have a deaf heart.

And what does this mean? Says Rashi: To be עמלים בתורה . Even if one does mitzvos, if he is not עמל בתורה he does not have a heart that can listen.

Pirkei Avot 2:9:

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אֵיזוֹהִי דֶּרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בָּהּ הָאָדָם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עַיִן טוֹבָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: חָבֵר טוֹב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁכֵן טוֹב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַנּוֹלָד. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לֵב טוֹב. אָמַר לָהֶם: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ, שֶׁבִּכְלָל דְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵיכֶם.

He (Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai) said to them: Go out and see what is the straightforward way that one should adhere to. Rabi Eliezer (ben Horkynos) said: A good eye. Rabi Yehoshua said: A good friend. Rabi Yosi said: A good neighbor.Rabi Shimon (ben Nesanel) said: One who can understand what has newly developed. Rabi Elazar (ben Arach) said: A good heart - לב טוב . He said to them: I see the words of Rabi Elazar ben Arach [to be prevalent] for your words are included in his.

There are 49 days between Pesach and Shavuos. 49 days in which to rise 49 levels from slavery until we can accept the Torah. We must acquire the 49 levels. The לב טוב .

לב טוב = 49

A לב טוב is a לב שומע. It's the heart that Rabi Elazar ben Arach used to have until he bathed in the fine waters and drank the fine wine. It is the heart of one who is עמל בתורה. It is the heart of one who listens to the Word of G-d.

It is the heart of a chareidi l'dvar Hashem.

Lipkin's Parallelogram

2010-05-06T00:28:00.005+03:00

All of my steady readers know that I follow Emes VeEmunah. Not that I think anyone should read his blog, but, for my line of work, it goes with the territory. Rabbi Maryles has made it his mission in life to find, expose and amplify every "defect" in the chareidi world - real or imagined - and to criticize his poor misguided brothers.

Only he calls it - "making a macha'ah".

I don't want to digress too far from my subject and express what I think about it. Let's just say there are many issues that people don't know about, won't know about, and won't care to know about until people like him first broadcast it on the Internet just so that they can "make a macha'ah". I don't really think there is any mitzvah to first meet the classical pashut pshat of לא תלך רכיל בעמך (the heter of 3 people definitely does not apply according to the Chofetz Chaim in Shmiras HaLashon 2:2) just to be mekayem הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך . But that's just my opinion.

Still, in my line of work as official chareidi apologist, I have to know what he says. Whether his kavanos are לשם שמים or not, he is clearly a קטיגור a "prosecutor". And I am a סניגור , an "apologist". I will take the saneigor position over the kateigor position any day.

So I follow his blog and I comment on it when I feel I have something to contribute. I try to be brief. My method is to merely make a point, not to "prove" it. It never pays to elaborate in the comments section. So if I want to elaborate on a subject I do it here. If I need to impress a point on somebody else's blog (like Harry's), I try to draw the reader to what I may have already written in my own forum. (Play with home field advantage!)

I did just that about a week ago when Rabbi Maryles was "making a macha'ah" about recent incidences of violence in RBS-B involving some chareidi hooligans . As he often does, Harry took somebody else's post and used it as a launching pad for his fireworks display. In this case it was Rabbi Natan Slifkin's account as related on his blog.

I don't want to comment directly about the incident because (aside that, just like Harry, I wasn't there) that would sidetrack us. Kanaos is a very complicated subject. Let me state for the record, that I am just as apalled and ashamed that this violence is going on as is anybody. Even a trip to the emergency room that doesn't R"L go all the way to the morgue is sh'fichas damim. And Jews have no business encroaching on Uncle Eisav's territory.

I personally do not believe it is proper for anybody to introduce these incidents into the media. Not Rabbi Slifkin even though he lives there and certainly not Rabbi Maryles who doesn't nor anybody. I think that if somebody is close enough to do something - go do it. For those who aren't close, who needs to know about it?

And making sure that everybody - even those who can have no influence on it - knows about it is what Chaza"l call רכילות .

Now chareidim are by definition religious idealists and idealism is just one step away from zealotry. So kanaos comes with the territory. Some of it is לשם שמים and some of it is not. If it is not לשם שמים , it amounts to a street brawl. When brawls like this take place, it is obviously quite a Chillul Hashem. And Chillul Hashems are a no-no.

We learn the concept of Chillul Hashem from the pasuk in Vayikra 22:32 that says:

וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת-שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

The transgression of Chillul Hashem and the mitzva of V'nikdashti (Kiddush Hashem) apply to all of Bnei Yisroel. This means that we are all responsible to see to it that there are no Chillul Hashems. All of us. Chillul Hashems are not always the work of individuals. Sometimes there are partners. When people are partners in Chillul Hashem, it doesn't matter who owns more shares in the partnership. 50-50, 60-40, 90-10. It doesn't matter. Just like a business parnership, every partner is 100% responsible the liabilities of the corporation from the perspective of the creditors.

And so, as I question the wisdom of Rabbis Maryles and Slifkin to discuss these issues in the public arena in the first place, I even more question their wisdom and authority to lace it with laying blame as to which partner is liable.

They both are.

When Jews fight Jews we must decry the violence by all means. But not by pointing fingers. Or laying blame. Because, as I have written in post after post after post, there is always enough blame to go around. And, unless the side you are rooting for had absolutely nothing to contribute, and had no alternative but to get involved, their involvement is just as voluntary as anyone else's. And they are a partner in the Chillul Hashem.

I have written numerous posts to try and impress this point. To follow is a brief list of some of the most celebrated entries:

We are not Judging Him, We are Judging You

G-d the Father and Father the G-d

Posts that I Haven't Published

Absolving the Casualty

And so, finally, I can get to the point of this post.

When Rabbi Maryles discussed this incident and used it as another pretense for a wholesale condemnation of the RBS-B chareidi (kanai) community, there were a few voices who pointed out that, in this particular incident, there are some valid grounds to assert that there was blatant provocation. Ensuing commenters quickly rejoined with the lame "excessive response" claim which they don't buy when the UN slaps it on the Medinah but it still needs to apply to the chareidim. "Just because I stomped on your toe doesn't mean that you are justified to kick me in the groin".

To weigh in on this, I entered a comment with nothing more than a link to my essay about Absolving the Casualty (link provided above). My site meter tells me that quite a few readers checked out the link.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Slifkin territory, the same debate was being played out led by an anonymous poster who later slightly modified his ID to Ani-Nimaas. This fellow, evidently an avid chassid of mine, was thoughtful enough to transfer my link onto Rabbi Slifkin's thread. When he did transfer the link, it was in response to a gentleman who calls himself Menachem Lipkin.

Well, Mr. Lipkin actually took the trouble to read my essay (which I appreciate) and here are his comments:

According to Hirshman, virtually no terror victim in Israel is truly a "victim" since the terrorists define our being here as a provocation. You realize how bizarre that is? If a woman is walking on the sidewalk in our neighborhood, but in view of theirs and she's not dressed according to their absurd Tznious rules then, according to Hirshman, she's not really a victim.

And this is what I want to comment on here and the subject of this post (finally). Mr. Lipkin is employing a device that I have encountered numerous times in my blogging career. And in the world of mathematics, it is known as Lipkin's Parallelogram. It means taking a concept that I wrote, and drawing a parallel to something that I didn't write and treating it as if I did.

This device was actually invented in 1864 by Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin in St. Petersburg. And, according to one web site, it is a "mechanical device for the change of linear into circular motion" (Wikipedia says the opposite). And ever since, people have been taking things that I have written straightforward (linear) and have been bending and twisting them and thus changing them from linear into circular reasoning.

Let's check what I wrote with the main points emphasized:

A victim is typically an unarmed or non-aggressive party who was the target of an aggressive event (attack) and was physically, financially, or emotionally harmed (as in massacred). A victim is one who had no personal control over the situation and did not have the resources, the opportunity or the presence of mind to avert or flee the scene of the harmful event. Typically, a victim was not confronted and presented with demands and ultimatums before being attacked. Someone is truly victimized when they have done nothing of substance to contribute to the event that harmed them. A true victim is somebody who was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Conversely, one who knowingly and needlessly exposes themselves to a hazardous situation or willfully engages in a physical confrontation (e.g. General Custer) and is harmed, is not known to be a victim but a casualty. Terrorists attack civilians and those civilians are victims of a massacre. Combatants confront each other and inflict casualties. We say that one is a victim of an attack but we do not say that one is a victim of a confrontation. In a confrontation, one is not a victim but a casualty. Thus I have a very hard time calling General Custer and his men victims. Nor would I call Riff of the Jets a victim of Bernardo. Especially since he is the one who called the rumble.

Mr. Menachem Lipkin is applying this device to what I wrote. And, unlike the original device devised by Mr. Yom Tov Lipkin, in this one there are two flaws in how my words are applied. One minor flaw and one major one.

The first flaw, Mr. M. Lipkin almost catches himself:

According to Hirshman, virtually no terror victim in Israel is truly a "victim" since the terrorists define our being here as a provocation. You realize how bizarre that is?

But, evidently, he let it slide. Yes, I also think it's bizarre. So bizarre that I would expect an intelligent person to immediately ascertain that it is not what I meant, especially since it is not what I wrote. Since when did I make any definitions contingent on what the attacker - terrorist - thinks (or "defines")? My definition was totally based on what the victim/casualty does! I wrote that if the subject is non-aggressive, had no personal control over the situation, or nothing of substance to contribute to the event, then they are indeed victims. This definition is not to be mitigated by overly sensitive, trigger happy terrorists.

Now, there was another commenter who called himself "Distant American" who also noticed how bizarre Lipkin's Parallelogram by expanding the naarishkeit even further:

You could argue further and say that according to Hirshman unless you denounce being jewish, there are no victims of anti-semitism. A person who's property is stolen is not a victim, only a casualty because by having the property accessible to a thief, they enabled the thief to take it.

Though I will never know if his intention is to point out to Mr. M. Lipkin his folly and he is a rational thinker or if he is agreeing with him and is just as asinine (oh my gosh, there's two of them?), but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. What I do want to point out is his mashal about stolen property. Because to illustrate my point, just approach your local insurance agent (I did).

To the unendowed, the circumstances in my definition of a non-victim (knowingly and needlessly exposes, willfiully engages) as opposed to the victim (no personal control, etc.) can be summarized in one word:

Negligence!

When somebody is negligent, they are not a victim. Thus, if somebody has a car and a thief breaks into it and steals it, his insurance will cheerfully reimburse him becasue he wasn't negligent. But, let's suppose he leaves the door unlocked, the keys in the ignition and the motor running, unless he can make a good case for human error (which is covered), he will have a pretty hard time collecting from the insurance because they will claim gross negligence.

Since I have noticed that many people including Mr. M. Lipkin and perhaps Distant American have trouble with this concept, I have written these two posts:

Now, that was the minor flaw. But here is what I consider a more significant flaw in Lipkin's Parallelogram:

According to Hirshman...

According to Hirshman?

Does anybody ever notice that Hirshman bases his ideologies (all of them) on pasukim and chazals and whenever Hirshman writes things like this , Hirshman always brings down the sources that he is basing it on?

Many people don't. Lipkin doesn't, Harry Maryles doesn't, Dallas Jew doesn't and two of the fellows who commented on my previous post do not. And the list goes on.

So let's discuss the essay on hand. In this case, when I discussed the Torah's view on victimhood I made a casual reference to the story of Dina in Breishis and the Rashi on pasuk 34:1. There Rashi does not spell out that Dina carries some measure of blame, though it is implied, but my major source is the story of the betrothed virgin in Devarim 22:23. There Rashi (from the Sifri) spells it out in big bold letters. (Other sources I could have brought and did not are Devarim 4:15 and Mishlei 22:5 - see Kesubos 30a).

Though I really wouldn't mind taking credit, if I learn something from Rashi (and Sifri) and use it as my model, then it is truly Rashi's concept. So my question to Mr. Lipkin is twofold:

1) According to Hirshman?? You mean according to Hirshman and not according to Rashi?? What do you have against giving credit to Rashi?

Oh, I know the obvious answer. According to Hirshman I can make a ridiculous extrapolation that I myself call "bizarre". But Rashi obviously doesn't mean that. It is too bizarre.

2) Well, Mr. Lipkin, if Rashi doesn't mean it that way, why on earth do you assume that Hirshman means it that way?

So let me give it to you straight. Hirshman means what Rashi means. If Rashi doesn't mean it, then Hirshman doesn't mean it either. If it's too bizarre for Rashi, it is too bizarre for Hirshman.

Now many people in the blogosphere seem to be intimidated by Hirshman. Hirshman is arrogant and condescending and polemical and satanic and has a "harsh attitude".

For what?

For reminding people what Chazal and Rashi say.

What is the problem?

The problem is that people don't want to hear what Rashi and Chazal say. Because they will have a tough time ignoring them and calling themselves legitimate. So if they pretend that Hirshman is the one who is saying it and it is not really the words of the Tanach or Chazal or Rashi, they can twist it so it sounds bizarre and soothe their consciences. Much harder to do that with Rashi.

There are shelves full of books that remind people about what Chazal say. Things people don't want to know or be reminded about.

They are called mussar books.

For the past 150 years there have been a few brave Jews who are not afraid to study the polemical thoughts of Chazal. And the movement to do so was initiated by a man named Rabbi Yisrael Lipkin.

He was the father of the musser movement. And he was also the father of Yom Tov Lipkin, the creator of the Lipkin Parallelogram. That parallelogram was proven to work. But the parallelogram that was introduced by Mr. Menachem Lipkin has two flaws. The first, as I said, is, instead of changing circular motion to linear (the real effect as documented in Wikipedia), it changes straightforward, linear "motion" to circular.

And the second flaw is that he has trouble acknowledging the basis in Chazal. Sadly, Mr. Lipkin is afraid of Rabbi Lipkin.

Postscript:
There were a number of points that I wanted to make with this post. That said, let me repeat that I am also distressed at what has been going on in RBS-B. My definition of chareidi is one who does mitzvos with ameilus b'Torah and kanaos that is not לשם שמים can have no part in it.

YH

What about the Holocaust, WHAT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?

2010-05-03T23:24:00.005+03:00

Note - This post is a response to a comment in my previous post Deja Vu in the Clouds. Please read that one first.

This coming Thursday is May 6. And this coming Friday is 23 Iyar. (הבעל"ט). In 1945 these two dates came on the same day.

That's the day that my father, LOY"T, was liberated from Ebensee. That was 65 years ago this week. Here's what I wrote about it in my book (One Above and Seven Below, p. 272-3):

As the Allied Forces closed in, the SS liquidated the satellite camps (and most of the inmates) and they herded the survivors and marched west. The survivors from that region were concentrated at a camp named Ebensee. I have seen photos and have read accounts about Ebensee. It can only be described as the land of the living dead (though there was no shortage of dead that did not happen to be living). By the time my father arrived, in the last weeks of the war, it was total chaos. Very few guards, no work, no food, no room to sleep, nothing but starvation, sickness, and death.

But - it was spring. The guns could be heard and the planes could be seen. For the living there was the dream of imminent liberation. And for the religious, there was G-d. On May 5, 1945 a flag was hung from the watchtower to signify that it was over. The next day my father, 15 years old, stood holding the hand of Rabbi Yehoshua Grunwald, the Rebbi of Chust, as they watched the American tanks roll in.

Shortly before the liberation, one prisoner came across a shel yad from a pair of tefillin. The shel yad was conveyed to the most prominent religious spiritual leader that was present, the Rebbi of Chust. He concealed this treasured find until the day of liberation a short time later. On the day of liberation the Allied Forces brought in a mobile field kitchen and prepared a meal of meat and rice. Two lines quickly formed - a long line at the kitchen waiting for a ration of the hearty food and a much shorter line in front of the Rebbi of Chust waiting to say the blessing and don the shel yad. My father stood on the short line. It seems that the food was too rich for the undernourished systems of most of the inmates. My father relates that many people who partook of the offerings of the long line began to die. Many others who partook of the offerings of the short line began to live.

A little more than 15 years ago, I asked my father how he felt right after liberation when his parents were gone and he was released from Gehinom. He answered: "I felt like I have the whole world open in front of me."

He was young and, despite the atrocities that he witnessed and experienced, he was spared much of the sufferring of so many others. He was from the Carpathian sector that wasn't evacuated to the concentration camps until 1944. He was too young to have been married so he didn't lose a spouse or children and the two sisters that he had before the war (there were no other siblings) survived as well. His parents were gone, his past was shattered, but he knew one thing: There is no point looking back. Only forward. And there was a whole open world in front of him.

Exactly 15 years ago, he made a grand Kiddusha Rabba on Shabbos to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his liberation. There are 7 of us children (3 were married at the time with a combination of 12 grandchildren. Now there are - בלע"ה - more than 35 grandchildren and some great grandchildren en route) and he wanted all 7 of us to say a few words.

When my turn came, I was at a total loss. But I kept thinking about what he told me a short while earlier: "I felt like I have the whole world open in front of me." And so I spoke out the gemara at the very end of masechet Makkos (24b):

שוב פעם אחת היו עולין לירושלים כיון שהגיעו להר הצופים קרעו בגדיהם כיון שהגיעו להר הבית ראו שועל שיצא מבית קדשי הקדשים התחילו הן בוכין ור"ע מצחק אמרו לו מפני מה אתה מצחק אמר להם מפני מה אתם בוכים אמרו לו מקום שכתוב בו והזר הקרב יומת ועכשיו שועלים הלכו בו ולא נבכה אמר להן לכך אני מצחק דכתיב ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אוריה הכהן ואת זכריה בן יברכיהו וכי מה ענין אוריה אצל זכריה אוריה במקדש ראשון וזכריה במקדש שני אלא תלה הכתוב נבואתו של זכריה בנבואתו של אוריה באוריה כתיב לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש [וגו'] בזכריה כתיב עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלם עד שלא נתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה הייתי מתיירא שלא תתקיים נבואתו של זכריה עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה בידוע שנבואתו של זכריה מתקיימת בלשון הזה אמרו לו עקיבא ניחמתנו עקיבא ניחמתנו:

On another occasion they were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mt. Scopus they rent their garments. When they reached the Temple Mount they saw a fox scurrying from the place of the Holy of Holies. They all began to weep and Rabi Akiva began to laugh. They said to him (Rabi Akiva): Why do you laugh? He said to them: Why do you weep? They said to him: The place upon which it states, "And the non-Kohen who approaches must die" and now it is overrun with foxes and we ought not weep? He responded: This is the reason that I laugh. It states (in Yeshaya) "And I will have testify for me trustworthy witnesses - Uriah the Kohen and Zecharia son of Yevarchihu..." How can Uriah be mentioned with Zecharia? Uriah lived during the first Temple and Zecharia lived during the second Temple! But rather the scripture is equating the prophecy of Zecharia to the prophecy of Uriah. By Uriah it is written: "Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed as a field..." and by Zecharia it is written: "There will yet again be elderly men and elderly women dwelling in Jerusalem..." As long as the prophecy of Uriah has not been fulfilled, I was afraid that the prophecy of Zecharia may likewise not be fulfilled. Now that I see the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, it is certain that the prophecy of Zecharia will be fulfilled.
And they said to him: Akiva has consoled us. Akiva has consoled us.

I was not brought up under the shadow of the Holocaust. When I was very little, I was told that Daddy was born in Europe and he "escaped" during WW II and his parents were killed.

When I was 8 years old we took our first trip to Eretz Yisrael and my mother took us to Yad Vashem. That's when I learned about the Holocaust.

And later on I started paying attention to what goes on in shul and I started listening to the weekly parsha. And I listened during Parshas Bechukosai (this week's parsha, BTW) and parshas Ki Savo when they read about the tochacha. And I said to myself, "That sounds just like the Holocaust!" Whoever wrote the Torah knew in advance that there was going to be a Holocaust. The Torah is REAL. Moshe is REAL.

G-d is REAL!

The prophecy of Uriah is real and the prophecy of Zecharia is real and parshat Ki Savo is real and parshat Nitzavim is real.

What about the Holocaust? WHAT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?

The Holocaust was our deepest tragedy, but it was also one of our greatest gifts. Because the children of the Holocaust have a Holocaust to tell them that what the Torah says will happen is what will happen. Since the churban habayis, no modern generation had a Holocaust to give us emunah in the Torah. But our generation has it.

And Rabi Akiva - and my father -tell us that we are allowed to laugh.

De'ja Vu in the Clouds

2010-05-03T15:59:00.008+03:00

On my previous post, one commenter weighed in with a very legitimate concern. It was a bit windy but I will quote the beginning which basically characterizes the whole comment:

I have a real problem with these stories in general, and I guess this case really underscores why. Just imagine the other stories that are not being circulated on the internet. Young mother/child/groom/ whoever on waiting list, desperate for transplant, the right liver finally available and s/he finally on top of the list - but could not fly to Belgium due to the volcano and, r"l, passed away.

If I understand him right, his question is based on the assumption that this story is meant to be drama with a happy ending which we are celebrating. Thus he is disturbed at the idea of celebrating one person's triumph at the expense of others.

My response was that his sentiment is valid, but his assumption is wrong. Here is part of what I wrote:

In any case, a story such as this one has (at the least) three very important messages; two of wich I expressly emphasized in my post.

1) It shows the gevurah of HKBH that He runs the world and He decides who lives and who dies. And it doesn't matter what policies or lists are set by the Humans down here, it is His list that counts.

2) HKBH treats some of his children with Midas Hadin and others with Midas HaRachamim. And, what's more amazing, the very same instrument that will be Midas Hadin for those of His choosing will be Midas HaRachamim for those of His choosing.

3) As the Gemara in Berachos (10a) says: Even if a sharp sword is laying upon one's throat, one should not abdicate himself from Rachamim.

In other words, the theme of this story is not a drama with a a happy ending, but a very important lesson in Gevuras Hashem. We are celebrating HKBH for showing the world who is Boss, not really celebrating the winning liver recipient for his triumph (though we share his joy).

What took me by surprise was the next comment. I couldn't understand how it was different from the first. And it came a whole day later. An excerpt:

Or how about the waiting potential recipients who lost out...the same questions could be asked about them if they should die as a result of what happened. Maybe they were Jews, or maybe they were Tzadikei Umot HaOlam (Righteous gentiles), and how about their families? How are they supposed to feel?

De'ja vu!

I figured that perhaps he hadn't read the earlier comment when he wrote his but I wasn't sure. So I formulated a response to the second fellow in my comments section. But then I had a sinking feeling that this is indicating a pattern. Who knows how many people read the post and didn't read the long windy comments and are bothered by the same question?

And so, instead of posting the response in the comments, I thought I should do up a new post and "tell it to the world". Here is the response exactly as I had initially written it for the comments:

I am having a lot of trouble understanding your comment. Have you read the existing comments to this post or did you immediately write your comment after reading my post without seeing the comments?

I see your comment as identical to that of NCO Chassid. The exact same taana: "Why are we cheering the winners at the expense of the losers?" Is your comment any different?

And the same response applies: This is meant to be a lesson in Gevuras Hashem not a drama with a happy ending.

But, both of you have helped me understand the answer to a different question that nags me when I hear stories like this:

Why did HKBH need to strike this fellow with a liver ailment and then "move mountains" (literally) to fix him up? Why not just keep him healthy in the first place (and either keep the German out of the morgue or let someone else get the liver)?

And now I see that HKBH does things so that these stories will be told. This unfortunate fellow may not be so unfortunate. He actually has the great merit to be a privileged agent of HKBHs messaging service.

What is more unfortunate is that HKBH needs to orchestrate these performances in this manner. Because, as these two commenters have convinced me…
...so many of us just don't get it.

Sincerely,

Yechezkel

Every Cloud has a Silver Lining

2010-04-24T21:51:00.003+03:00

Yesterday evening between Kabbalas Shabbos and maariv Harav Yitzchak Mordechai HaCohen Rubin, Shlita spoke about the volcanic eruption in Iceland. He took note of how we tend to get overly complacent about the perpetual motion of the industrialized world as if the man-made forces of communication, commerce and transportation are immutable forces of nature themselves. Never in recent history has a purely natural event brought such a large part of the industrialized world to a virtual standstill.

He characterized it that HKBH felt the need to remind the world that it has a Supreme Manhig - Operator - and, in this case, He chose to show us that he leads us with an Amud Ha'annan - a pillar of cloud.

And he went on to tell us a fascinating story which illustrates how his Amud Ha'annan can be midas harachimim for his "followers" at the same time as it is a midas hadin for the non-believers. The story was as follows:

There is an observant Jew who lives in Kiryat Matersdorf here in Jerusalem who was suddenly stricken with acute liver failure. The doctors here knew that he would require a liver transplant. The leading hospital for liver diseases in the Eastern hemisphere, where virtually all liver transplants in Europe are performed, is located in Belgium. And so, the Matersdorf patient was rushed to Belgium for treatment. This must have occurred a few days prior to the mid-April volcanic eruption.

In Belgium it was confirmed that the patient requires a new liver. However, the prevailing policy was that citizens of the European Union have priority for all transplants in this hospital. Israel is not a member of the Euroean Union so our Israeli patient was not so accredited. This meant that even if a compatible liver should become available, as long as there are EU citizens in need who are likewise compatible, he is automatically at the bottom of the list. At the moment there were four other EU citizens with his blood profile awaiting liver transplants. Beside that, it wasn't too relevant because the hospital's butcher shop was out of liver.

As to be expected, this fellow tried to see what local connections and persuasions can be brought to play to neutralize his last place status. Whoever could be called was called and whoever might be bought was solicited and nothing could be accomplished not for love or money. He was still in last place and time was short.

Then, the volcano hiccupped and sent the Amud Ha'annan to northern Europe.

You can guess the rest of the story. Some fellow from Germany checked himself into the morgue (careful on that Autobahn) and was all too happy to yield a compatible liver. The liver would only be viable for a very limited time so it was rushed to Belgium by rail. The four people on the waiting list were all contacted and none of them were located in a place where they could get to Belgium within the critical time. The only patient on hand who could be a recipient for the life saving liver was our last place Israeli patient from Kiryat Matersdorf.

Shlomo HaMelech writes (Koheles 9:11): כי לא לקלים המרוץ ולא לגבורים המלחמה

...for the swiftest do not win all the races and the mightiest do not win all the battles...

HKBH leads the world. Usually behind a veil of "nature". But sometimes it is with a pillar of fire and sometimes it is with a pillar of cloud.

And every cloud has a silver lining.

Ah, But How White are His Teeth!

2010-04-11T04:25:00.030+03:00

Am I the only one who noticed that there seems to be some differences of opinion between 2 very renowned Roshei Yeshiva - Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Shlita and Rabbi Aharon Feldman, Shlita?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Now, I am certainly not worthy of weighing in any opinion of significance between these 2 great Princes of Torah. Especially since I have never gone sledding in my life. (Yes, there was plenty of snow where I come from but there was an acute shortage of hills.) Yet, in the simple-minded capacity of the child in The Emperor's New Clothes, I feel I can naively express that which I can plainly observe.

Owing that I have already discussed my impressions on Rabbi Feldman's book in a previous post, it remains for me to comment on the articulate remarks of Rabbi Lichtenstein. Let me declare that, aside from having read Rabbi Feldman's book in its entirety, I likewise have thoroughly read Rabbi Lichtenstein's essay, more than once. Nevertheless, after these repeated readings of Rabbi Lichtenstein's essay, I have one word to describe my feelings.

Befuddled.

There is so much that I do not understand (child that I am) and perhaps a bit of "pilpul chaveirim" can clear the air for me.

First, let us review some basics. Rabbi Aharon Feldman has published a book whose purpose is "an attempt to present an authentic Jewish perspective on various issues regarding which many in the observant Jewish public are confused, because of the lack of understanding about how the Torah retlates to them." In other words he wants to explain the Torah community's (i.e., Yeshivish/Chassidish/Chareidi) perspective to those observant Jews who are confused (don't get it) and wish to be enlightened.

That's cool. I did the same thing.

Said book comprises a collection of essays from recent years on "raging issues". He groups the essays into 5 categories:

Zionism - Where he discusses our rejection of secularism

Feminism - Where he discusses our rejection of liberal trends

Books and Persons - Where he discusses (pro and con) the works of other observant Jews

Matters of Belief - Where he discusses Messianism and RabbinicAuthority

Matters of Behavior - Where he discusses criminality and homosexuality

And now we discuss Rabbi Lichtenstein. My first challenge was that, since I never attended Harvard, I was quite befuddled by some of those ten-dollar words that he employed. Undaunted, I was able to navigate this minefield thanks to the handy-dandy online dictionary that I have linked in my Favorites folder. I am, after all, a technical writer. But I was still befuddled by his choice of words. As a friend (from Baltimore, no less) told me in the Imrei Shefer mikveh, "He used terminology that you won't find in the New York Times."

It is certainly Harvard level vocabulary, not Jewish Action. And so the question nags at me: Who was he writing this for? Was it only for people with Harvard level education or for people who may be interested in Rabbi Feldman's book? And if the latter, why make it so taxing to try to understand what he is trying to say?

Perhaps it was meant to keep simple-minded children like me from being able to formulate a response. Almost worked.

After conquering the lexicon, the next befuddling issue was his use of a very simple and common word: anger.

I took the liberty of even looking up this word in my online dictionary to see what kind of aberrant connotation may be intimated by a Harvardian. There were so many definitions available there as to render his intent a matter of guesswork. But there was one dominant definition: a strong feeling of hostility.

And now I am triply befuddled.

Firstly, as one commenter in the OU.Org web site (one Mike Rose) points out: "I read the Eye of the Storm, and I did not detect any anger." Likewise, I also read the entire book and I fail to see what can be construed as hostility or "anger". It looks as if Rabbi Lichtenstein qualifies this assertion by quoting some perfectly relevant statements from the "Introduction" and comes to the conclusion that: "hence, the predominant polemical thrust of The Eye of the Storm." It is as if he is taken aback by a "polemical thrust".

But, please. Let's wake up and smell the coffee. The chareidi (or Torah or "authentic") community is indeed somewhat rejectionist. It rejects secularism, liberal trends, messianism, homosexuality, and the like. The purpose of this book is to politely, respectfully, and rationally explain WHY our community rejects these ideas. Such a book is inherently going to have a polemic thrust. It is unavoidable as it is its purpose. But it need not be hostile (angry).

And it isn't.
(Indeed, I need to point out that Rabbi Lichtenstein's unfettered use of the term "anger" inspired a very popular blogger to accuse Rabbi Feldman of "inspiring hatred" based solely on Rabbi Lichtenstein's characterization. I hereby submit my macha'ah to Rabbi Lichtenstein for being responsible for this chain of events.)

And a second thought befuddles me: What has Rabbi Lichtenstein achieved by characterizing this work as a work of anger?

I will tell you what he has achieved. And it is a nifty trick. To say that a work is motivated by anger is to say that the work is not purely a work of rational debate. In other words, the rationale of the party in question is at least partly impaired by whatever level of emotion (anger, passion... whatever you want to call it) that is present. As such, this serves as a preamble to the rebuttals that follow as if to explain or excuse the perceived flaws of the author as a result of "anger".

And, thirdly, even if we are to agree with Rabbi Lichtenstein that Rabbi Feldman's critques, despite his respectful and eloquent presentation, can be characterized as "anger", I fail to see how Rabbi Lichtenstein's critiques, despite his respectful and eloquent presentation, can be characterized any less as "anger". (And I am certain that, in this vein, some readers will feel justified in characterizing my critique as "anger".) And thus, Rabbi Lichtenstein has succeeded in opening a Pandora's box that, in my humble opinion, was best to have been left undisturbed. I question the wisdom of Rabbi Lichtenstein in introducing this assertion and I submit that for the rebuttals that he is soon to present, it does not serve his case well by any means.

Now, let us discuss these rebuttals. Rabbi Lichtenstein chooses to focus his attention on the first 2 sections of the book: Zionism and Feminism.

First things first - Zionism. Rabbi Feldman presents a collection of essays in an effort to follow the mission of his book: to help the "confused" understand why the world of "authentic Judaism"is at odds with the secular ideologies of the "Jewish" State. In general they focus on the "vacuity" of a secular based ideal and how it can be shown to have contributed to a very noticable breakdown in society.

On this, Rabbi Lichtenstein doesn't seem to offer a more potent response than to "play down" severity of this decadence by writing: "Must we, may we, be so radically judgmental as we deplore certain lapses in religious motivation and result?"

This is actually one of the "4 kushyos" that Rabbi Lichtenstein presents in the main rebuttal paragraph and the only one in which he addresses, in general terms, what Rabbi Feldman wrote. The other 3 "kushyos" address what Rabbi Feldman did not write. They are:

At one end of the spectrum, is it indeed desirable– or even possible–to engage in a foray of utter denial of Jewish worth to what the Zionist enterprise, albeit regarded as a monolithic behemoth, hath wrought?

Is the reclamation of Eretz Yisrael, accompanied by gradual progress towards rov yoshvehah alehah, Jewishly neutral?

Can we blandly overlook the infant country’s commitment to kelitah, arguably the most monumental initiative of post- Biblical chesed, as if only atheists and Christians valued caritas?

In general, Rabbi Lichtenstein is asking: Is there nothing positive that we can say about the Zionist enterprise?

I don't want to get bogged down in specific refutations here, but I would (to be very brief) say the following (note- I am not speaking for Rabbi Feldman): For question 1 - nobody has denied that there are some positive aspects to appreciate BUT - for questions 2 and 3 - these 2 "achievements" (if they are indeed 2) have not been absolute virtues. The Zionist enterprise has seen to it that they have come at a heavy price to the spiritual well being of the population. The argument can certainly be made that to the extent that the Jewsih character of the state is vibrant is in spite of it and not because of it.

I am not certain when Rabbi Feldman wrote the included essays, but they were not all written yesterday. I mentioned that they focus on the "vacuity" of a secular based ideal and how it can be shown to have contributed to a very noticable breakdown in society. Current events show us that this is only "the beginning". Rabbi Feldman's essays evidently pre-dated a society which, on the one hand, can expel a Hesder Torah institution because it did not retroactively want to condemn those who protested throwing Jews from their homes and, on the other hand, an ex-soldier passes more than 2000 highly sensitive security documents into the hands of hostile media sharks. Our enemies can shoot rockets at us with impiunity and we can barely respond and our government bows to foreign rulers to halt all construction in much of our land. "We are still subservient to Achashverosh!" (TB Megilah 14a) Consequently, one thing Rabbi Feldman did not emphasize, is that the vacuity of Zionism has currently not only perpetrated a breakdown of society at large, but we are experiencing what is being called a post-Zionist era. In other words, secular Zionism has destroyed itself!

Rabbi Lichtenstein, whose essay is much more current, doesn't seem to acknowledge this new reality and the dangers that it poses. He merely decries that Rabbi Feldman does not acknowledge the "modicum" of benefits.

And when I read this "criticism" in his essay, I could not chase away from my mind a legend that is brought in Chovos HaLevavos (Shaar Kniah 6):

There was an incident of a certain pious man who was strolling with his students and they chanced upon the putrid carcass of a dog. The students exclaimed, "Oh, how putrid is this carcass!" And the pious one retorted, "Ah, but how white are his teeth!"

Now, it is clear that the pious Jew in no way negated the observation of his students. He merely was trying to teach them to see the good side in everything. But this is merely a philosophical lesson, not an excuse for folly. I would tend to doubt that the pious man was ready to pick up the dog's carcass and bring it home to his wife and when she says: "Don't you walk in here with that putrid carcass", he will say, "But, look how white are his teeth!"

And so, by "exposing the vacuity of secular Zionism", I hear Rabbi Feldman saying the obvious: "How putrid is this carcass!" And now I hear Rabbi Lichtenstein, not negating the observation of Rabbi Feldman, but assuming the role of the pious Jew and telling us: "Ah, but how white are his teeth!"

And, now we discuss the second section: Feminism.

By way of summary, I would like to submit that perhaps this section of the book was not aptly titled. It could more aptly be called "Liberal Orthodoxy" because that is the underlying catalyst of Orthodox feminism. Feminism is the effect but liberal mindedness is the cause. Accordingly, Rabbi Feldman devotes 3 chapters to this issue. All of which, essays written at different times for different audiences, point out the inconsistencies in the feminist approach to mitzvos which serve to cast aspersions on the true sincerity and spiritual altruism that the protagonists lay claim to.

The middle essay (Halachic Feminism or Feminist Halachah?) is a protracted one which reviews the Halachic essays titled Jewish Legal Writings by Women and asserts that they are politically motivated works whose writers seek to manipulate the Halacha to fit the feminist agenda. This is accomplished using Halachic sleight-of-hand (now you see this authority-now you don't or "watch me pull a Rishon out of a snood") and reverse osmosis (deliver the verdict first and call the witnesses later). A major segment is a critical analysis of an article penned by Ms. Aliza Berger that discusses the permissibility (or advisability) for women to don tefillin. One of Rabbi Feldman's trump points is that the author simply ignores that virtually all authorities from the time of the codifiers (he mentions: Beis Yosef, Rema, Magen Avraham, Peri Megadim, Aruch HaShulchan and Mishna Berura) who discuss this issue maintain that women are proscribed from donning tefillin.

Here again we get from Rabbi Lichtenstein the "How putrid is this carcass"/"Ah, but how white are his teeth" treatment as he totally sidesteps any debate on Rabbi Feldman's main point of an agenda based movement and contents himself with seeking out the "flaws in the context of Halachic discourse". As this entire criticism does not directly relate to the theme of the book or Rabbi Feldman's prevailing points about feminism, only on Halachic discourse, I could claim there is no need for rebuttal. Still, Rabbi Lichtenstein's points do have merit and deserve to be addressed.

Rabbi Lichtenstein criticizes on 2 levels - general theory and detailed application. In the general theory department, he quotes an excerpt from the chapter:
Thus, an opinion of the Rishonim, when codified by the major later authorities, is inviolable.

Rabbi Lichtenstein goes on to present numerous legitimate opinions that, under the proper circumstances, scholars of a later era (Achronim) can argue with those of a previous one (Rishonim). A case in point is the well known demeanor of the Shaagas Aryeh. Interestingly, I discussed this very issue in a very recent post that I wrote about Halachic process. I presented Rabbi Feldman's position as a rule of thumb. One commenter challenged me with similar sources as well as a mention of the Shaagas Aryeh. My response was that I concede to him that this is not an iron clad rule without exception, but I also noted that the Shaagas Aryeh - a 17-18th century sage - was not nearly as chronologically removed from the Rishonim as we are.

Thus, though I cannot speak for Rabbi Feldman, I think that perhaps the statement quoted by Rabbi Lichtenstein was also not meant to be an absolute rule without exception and we can accept the assertion of Rabbi Lichtenstein that people with the stature and "broad shoulders" of the Shaagas Aryeh are qualified to debate with Rishonim. Perhaps there are some such giants in each generation, even ours. Perhaps Rav Elyashiv, Shlita, perhaps Rav Ovadia Yosef Shlita, perhaps Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, shlita. Nevertheless, for the average - or even above average - rav, avreich or Rosh Yeshiva of today, and certainly of Ms. Aliza Berger, I would tend to doubt that any exceptions are in order.

But, perhaps, Rabbi Lichtenstein is misreading this statement to begin with. It looks to me like he is reading the statement: Thus, an opinion of the Rishonim, when codified by the major later authorities, is inviolable.- with the accent on the Rishonim; but the proper reading is: Thus, an opinion of the Rishonim, when codified by the major later authorities, is inviolable - with the accent on the codifiers and later authorities. And he means to say that when the consensus is so persistently unanimous (even if not completely), then the Halacha is inviolable. I will get back to this point shortly.

Now, let's discuss the detailed application. Here is where I was more befuddled than ever. When I first read the essay, I initially caught the impression that Rabbi Lichtenstein is championing the cause for Orthodox women to don tefillin. And I was flabbergasted. How could this be? Is not Rabbi Lichtenstein the star disciple and son-in-law of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitcik Z"L? And is not the tale that Rabbi Feldman himself relates in his book (pages 74-5) concerning Rabbi Soloveitchik and the woman who wanted to wear a tallis of legendary renown?

But, when I reviewed the piece more thoroughly, I noted that after the argument on Halachic discourse is duly registered, Rabbi Lichtenstein does indeed offer a minor concession to Rabbi Feldman that "traditional prevalent practice should be sustained". Just not on the basis of Rabbi Feldman's position; in line with the Talmudic adage of "Halacha kimoso v'lo mitaamei". (The source reference should read Kesuvos 83b-84a, not 83a-84b). My concern for Rabbi Lichtenstein is that many readers who are not as meticulous will likely also catch the impression that he is championing the cause for women to don tefillin and will not notice his conclusion. Here again I wonder if instilling this sort of impression upon these readers serves his best interests.

That said, the final thing left for us to do is to examine his argument and determine if it is valid. Rabbi Lichtenstein opens by taking Rabbi Feldman to task for calling the poskim "unanimous" in 2 places and "nearly unanimous" in a third. I agree that Rabbi Feldman should be more consistent. Nevertheless, in terms of Rabbi Feldman's list of poskim, it does seem to be unanimous or "nearly so" and Rabbi Lichtenstein does not offer us a single authority of the "post-codifier" era with a dissenting opinion.

However, Rabbi Lichtenstein continues:

Strictly speaking, of course, if we use Rishonim as a yardstick, neither statement is accurate. A practice which was regarded as open to acceptance by the Rashba, the Ritva, the Meiri and less prominent Rishonim....

This is a fatal flaw in Rabbi Lichtenstein's argument. It is what I have learned in the blog world is known as a "straw man" argument. And the straw man is in these words: If we use the Rishonim as a yardstick...

If we use the Rishonim as a yardstick, then Rabbi Lichtenstein is absolutely correct. But Rabbi Feldman does not use the Rishonim as a yardstick. He uses the poskim. In fact, Rabbi Feldman himself concedes fully on page 95 that by the Rishonim, the issue is not unanimous. He writes: "Nevertheless, Aliza Berger...prefers the opinion which emerges from some other Rishonim..." The issue is only "unanimous" in the poskim. And Rabbi Feldman distinguishes between the poskim and the Rishonim.

Let us understand Rabbi Feldman's position (the way I see it, at least).

Rabbi Feldman, along with the core chareidi/Yeshivish world, maintains that while the Rishonim were the primary analysts of the Talmud and their opinions are all authoritative, it is left to the codifiers and the poskim that came after them to guide us through the various opinions of the Rishonim and direct us how to go"Halacha l'maaseh". Thus it is the major consensus of the poskim and codifiers that we must listen to and not to seek "Halacha l'maaseh" from the early Rishonim. Similar to a low level employee who takes his instructions from a foreman even though it is clear that the foreman himself gets his instuctions from the "higher-ups". The employee himself is not authorized to go "over the head" of the foreman to the source.

Similarly when we have a general consensus on an Halachic issue from the poskim - those being the authorities on Rabbi Feldman's list and their peers (Beis Yosef, Rema, Magen Avraham, and onward to Mishna Berura) - we bow to them and assume that they were as aware as we are on the gamut of opinions in the Rishonim and they knew which opinions it is best to accept and which to reject. Thus, according to Rabbi Feldman, the primacy is in the hands of the later poskim and not the Rishonim even though the Rishonim were undeniably greater.

Thus, as I said, the Rishonim are not our yardstick. At the Rishonim level, Rabbi Feldman concedes there are various opinions and at the poskim level, Rabbi Lichtenstein does not prove that it is not unanimous. As such, when Rabbi Lichtenstein concludes his paragraph: Are not the giants here cited “classical authorities?” the answer is: No! These giants are not the classical authorities that Rabbi Feldman consults for our consensus. They are the precursors of the classical authorities. They are greater than the classical authorities, but for our purpose, we look to the Achronim as the classical authorities. And, from this group, on this issue, we do not have any dissenters.

So, to summarize, Rabbi Feldman's complaint on Ms. Berger is that she ignores the consensus of the poskim which is unanimous or nearly unanimous and goes over their heads to the era of the Rishonim where she can find support. His position is that even though there may be some prominent Rishonim who allow a woman to wear tefillin, the general consensus in the poskim is that they must not. Comes Rabbi Lichtenstein and responds that even though the consensus in the poskim is that they must not, there are still prominent Rishonim that allow it.

We call this: טענו בחטים וכפרו בשעורים He claims from his neighbor 2 bushels of wheat and his neighbor says, "I do not owe you 2 bushels of barley".

I would like to conclude on a personal note - I wish to note that I do not know Rabbi Lichtenstein personally. And for the most part, I do not know Rabbi Feldman, either, except that I am a friend and neighbor of his son Rav Eliyahu and Rabbi Feldman was in Har Nof over Chol Hamoed Pesach. I took this opportunity to introduce myself to him and to present him with a copy of my book.

And as I do not know either of these 2 great Roshei Yeshiva personally, I do not wish them to take any of my comments or rebuttals personally. Obviously, my hashkafic bias is evident but I have done my best to present Rav Feldman's case from logical debate.

And, as for me--will I ever sled for the very first time?

Sure I will...when Har Nof freezes over.

Getting the Season Off to the Right Start

2010-04-06T14:31:00.004+03:00

Yom Tov is over and it's my first day back at the office in Har Chotzvim. It's kind of slow and a co-worker suggested that I take a look at Obama's first pitch to open the season for the Washington Nationals.

Well, I tried to open the clip but this is all I got:

What does it say to you?

Book 2 and The Eye of the Storm

2010-04-04T00:11:00.009+03:00

Those of you who are familiar with my book (i.e., read the whole thing or have the misfortune of being related to me) are aware that it is a 2-part project.

To rehash:

Book 1 - the one that exists - is meant to present the hashkafos of the chareidi/Torah-oriented/One Above world to those who don't understand it (no small group).

Book 2 - not yet published - is meant to apply the hashkafos to the "raging" issues of observant Judaism to show how they play out in the field and why. These would include hot topics such as: State of Israel and army service, work vs. learning, technology and Internet, beis din and agunos, geirus (new addition), kanaos, mehadrin kashrus (and buses?), eruvim, chareidi miscreants and שאר ירקות. Incidentally, a chapter about chareidim who go off the derech (OTD) was included in Book 1.

It goes without saying that Book 2 stands to be the more juicier, confrontational and perhaps "mud-slinging" volume. As such, every so often somebody from my tiny group of fans asks me "When is Book 2 coming out?" to which I am forced to answer, "Currently, there is no scheduled release and, currently, there is no release to schedule."

Or, in other words, I have suspended the second half of the project for the time being.

And why?

There are a whole slew of reasons. Among them:

Resources - Books require a lot of time for writing and editing and a lot of money for typesetting and printing. For Book 1, I was blessed with adequate supplies of both. This is no longer the case.

Poor Yield - Although One Above and Seven Below has successfully made a name for itself and commands the respect it deserves, it is not as sought after as I would have hoped it to be. In other words, sales are fair but disappointing.

People don't read- An extention of the previous point is that people do not have the time or patience to read like they used to. The world of books is suffering terribly from competition from more stimulating media as well as from an over-abundance of books. All booksellers (and authors) that I have spoken to are complaining about this.

But I think the trump point is that the hashkafos of the chareidi world (Book 1) are steadfast and unchanging. As such, it is not much of a challenge to start writing a book in 2003 and publish it in 2007 and it can be just as relevant in 2017 and 2027.

Not so the issues. Our world is changing every ~~day~~ um ~~hour~~ um minute so that some issues may suddenly lose their relevance and others take their place in the spotlight. As an example, the issue of the chareidi's disdain for army service is not nearly as hot a topic after the universal disillusionment of the disengagement (2005), the surplus in manpower or the success of Nachal Chareidi. Conversely, I initially (in 2003) never thought to address the chareidi approach to conversion. Now, however, a work that overlooks geirus issues would be incomplete at best.

Writing a book on current issues is like trying to change a tire on a moving truck!

And for that reason I have opened this blog where I can present my message in a more popular forum (the Internet) in bite-size pieces and present the material for immediate consumption while the issues are current. I have shifted my limited time and energies in this direction.

In short, this blog is in effect a substitute for Book 2. As a side effect, it has held me back from working directly on Book 2. Nevertheless, I do not consider this delay to be detrimental for a number of reasons.

One is that I have learned so much about the world of the "Seven Below" - the scoffers, the cynics, the antagonists, and the "centrists" - over my 20 months of blogging that I am much more prepared to deal with issues on "their" terms than I would be if I had not delayed Book 2.

And a second reason is that, in the interim, another "spokesman" from the chareidi world, and one considerably older, more erudite, more articulate, and more venerable and acclaimed than I has taken the trouble of writing a version of Book 2 in my stead.

And, with this, I wish to pay tribute to HaRav Aharon Feldman, Shlita and his superb book: The Eye of the Storm.

And, from what I understand, this book is selling like hotcakes.

I first got wind of the book about 2 months ago when my son, Yaakov, who was working afternoons at Manny's in Meah Shearim told me told me that a book came out by Harav Aharon Feldman that was very similar to mine. He offered to get me a copy with his employee discount, but I had a better idea. I got the book at retailer's cost from Rav Feldman's son (Rav Eliyahu) who lives in the building next to mine.

I wanted to be one of the first people on the blogosphere to review the book (okay, it was way too late for Slifkin from last November) but I suffered from one handicap - I wanted to read it first. So it was hard to compete with some other ~~reviewers~~ eid-m'pi-eid commenters who didn't bother to read the book at all.

To generalize, the purpose of his book is identical to the purpose of mine, but he says it better: A calm view of raging issues. It is meant to present the perspective of the chareidi/Torah/One Above world on current issues in an effort to restore some calm.

Now, in my Book 1, my approach is to focus on the hashkafos and, through understanding them, to set the stage for dealing with the issues. His book approaches from the opposite direction - to deal with the issues and, through them, to present an understanding on the hashkafos.

I believe that this is a more effective approach (and the sales figures seem to bear it out) and it is the approach I had in mind for Book 2. So, to some extent, he has saved me the trouble of writing Book 2.

Now, of course, he doesn't nearly cover the full list of issues that I presented at the top of this post and, conversely, some of the topics that he does discuss, notably his discussions about homosexuality and Messianic Lubavitchers, are things that I did not want to touch in my book (though I posted a blog about homosexuality HERE).

The primary overlap issue is his discussion about secular Zionism which I planned to discuss as a preamble to the army issue (which he does not elaborate upon). Needless to say, I am in full agreement with him on the topic. Another overlap is his discussion on feminism which I did indeed deal with briefly in my Book 1 on pages 161-168. His main point is that women are not required to perform certain mitzvos and, thus, these mitzvos are not priority aspects of Avodas Hashem for a woman. As such, the drive for a woman to perform these mitzvos regardless is more born from self gratification than a longing for Avodas Hashem. This is the identical message that I present in my book.

In other points of "collusion" Harav Feldman, Shlita, has an essay about Daas Torah where he clarifies that Daas Torah does not mean overruling the opinions of experts on civil or medical matters but rather it means adding Torah based considerations into the cholent of secular or scientific considerations as an integral part of the process of formulating a course of action. I do not discuss this form of Daas Torah but I do have a chapter about Rabbinic Authority in Book 1 (Cops and Rabbis).

In his book, there is one chapter that is more an overview on chareidi hashkafa than a position on a "raging" issue titled: Credo of Credence. Likewise, in my Book 1, I present my deepest, most scholarly discussion on chareidi hashkafa in a chapter titled: Getting to the Heart of the Matter. The highlight of his chapter is a commentary from the Vilna Gaon in Shir HaShirim which declares that there are only 2 actual mitzvos: Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha and all positive mitvos are manifestations of Anochi Hashem and all negative mitzvos are manifestations of Lo Yihiye Lecha. The highlight of my chapter is a commentary from the Maharsha in Maseches Makkos which declares that there are only 2 actual mitzvos: Anochi Hashem and Lo Yihiye Lecha and all positive mitvos are manifestations of Anochi Hashem and all negative mitzvos are manifestations of Lo Yihiye Lecha.

So as Harav Feldman zeros in on The Eye of the Storm, he presents the hashkafos that are universally upheld in the chareidi world. It is natural that we see the storm "eye-to-eye". That said, there was one essay in which I am not in complete agreement. Most of you can probably guess - it is his overview on the Slifkin affair. I may want to elaborate on where I disagree and why, but if so, it will have to wait for a separate post. Likewise, I did see the review penned by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein and I have much to comment on it. This, too, will have to command its own post.

All in all, I certainly agree with my son Yaakov that Harav Feldman's book is both a compliment and a complement to mine. His book is much more practical and much less theoretical than mine is. Also it is a bit shorter with larger print and, of course, it has the eloquence and succinct delivery that Harav Feldman is known for. So it adds up to a more comfortable and less tedious read.

I highly recommend it and, more so, I strongly urge anybody who has read my book or who rejected my book to experience Harav Feldman's approach.

Because our mission in life is to outlast the storm.

Uncle Why Explains Taboos, er, I mean Tattoos

2010-03-18T15:29:00.017+02:00

Note - This post is a continuation of my earlier post, Uncle Why leaves the Jews "Open to Interpretation". I recommend that you read that post before reading this one.

Well, boys and girls it really is time to answer one of your Jews questions. This one comes from Charel somewhere in Queensland down under.

--Hi Charel ---

Charel writes:

Dear Uncle Why,

I am recently converted and I read somewhere where a person claims that the prohibition against tattoos is "open to interpretation". So, if someone believes completely in the 13 Principles of Faith, but would still like to get a tatoo - where do they fall?

Thanks, Charel. In this case, I must tell you Charel, that they fall just about a low as they can go. And let me explain Why.

With relation to the "family of Man" as a whole, the Jews have been singled out. And we have been singled out for one purpose: to be a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש - to be a "kingdom of priests and a sacred nation". This means that we must be role models of dignity and decency and a bit more disciplined than the average James. And it means more than anything else that we must distance ourselves from a whole list of practices that the Torah considers to be morally decadent.

For this purpose, the Torah designated a special parsha in sefer Vayikra to spell out for us what the kedusha of being Jewish is all about and exactly what are the decadent practices that we must eschew. The pasha is named "Parshat Kedoshim" and it begins by commanding us that we must be a Holy people (even though we heard this already).

And why?

Because HKBH is Holy. And our job is to show the world to what degree a Human being can become like Him (B"H).

As a result, Kedoshim Tihiyu becomes the definition of what being a גוי קדוש is and, by extention, the definition of what being Jewish is. Conversely, one who transgresses on Kedoshim Tihiyu is not acting "like a Jew".

So now let us discuss one mitzvah that is listed in Kedoshim Tihiyu (Vayikra 19:28): the prohibition against "embedded writing in the flesh" a.k.a. tattoos.

As I indicated, the mere positioning of this prohibition is Parshat Kedoshim tells us much about it. The Torah considers it a decadent practice. The Rambam - yes, the one quoted in the chapter, places the laws of this prohibition in Hilchos Avoda Zara (12:11). And he tells us as such:　

וזה היה מנהג העכו"ם שרושמין עצמן לעבודת כוכבים כלומר שהוא עבד מכור לה ומורשם לעבודתה

And this was the practice of the idol worshippers that would mark themselves for idolatry to proclaim that this person has sold himself to it and is marked for its service.

Though this may be what "triggered" the prohibition, the Torah does not limit the prohibition as applicable exclusively when done in the service of idolatry. All tattoos are forbidden. So, although engraving a tattoo may not be actual worship (and thus does not incur the death penalty), it is cast as an idolotrous practice. Incidentally, if it is done as an actual idolotrous ritual, it does indeed incur the death penalty as that is the law by all rituals that are recognized as components of a specific form of foreign worship.

Beyond the direct association to idolatry, there it has a more "secular" standing as "chukos hagoyim" or "darkei emori". Thus, the Shulchan Aruch lists this transgression in the following sequence:

Laws of idol worship > laws of usury (Ribbis) > laws of Chukos Hagoyim > laws of witchcraft and sorcery > laws of incisions and tattoos.

In addition to this, one the the disciplines of Kedusha is to acknowledge that we cannot just decorate our bodies any way we like.

Many people who engrave tattoos, especially highly visible ones, will say that they are "making a statement". No doubt. From our perspective this is the statement that he (or she) is making:

I have no regard for the laws of G-d's Torah

I believe that my body is mine to do with it what I please

I have not detached myself from Chukos Hagoyim

And he/she is making this loud statement 24/7/365/120.

Because, unlike other Dark-ei Emori that last until the sun comes up, a tattoo doesn't heal or wear away. It sticks around!

Now, most Jews from traditional Jewish families don't even think much about all of this. This is because in Jewish culture, we are basically raised looking upon tattoos as something repulsive and un-Jewish. For the vast majority, it does not even strike us as a temptation. And if a born Jew willingly engraves a tattoo on his body, it is seen as a blatant rebellion.

Now it seems that for those from non-Jewish cultures who seek to join us, there is something very alluring about a tattoo. And this can be quite dangerous. Because when somebody endeavors to join the Jewish people one of the most essential aspects is to demonstrate that he has left his attachment to Chukos Hagoyim at the door. To not do so serves to undermine one's total commitment.

So my advice to you, Charel, is that even if you admire tattoos you must make sure to admire them from a distance. As far away as you can get. And it is not a good idea to give credence to any soul so lost that they can consider a practice that is so clearly rooted in paganism and so starkly repulsed in our tradition to be "open to interpretation". Because as long as the clearly stated and codified laws of the Torah can be considered "open to interpretation", the status of one who sees the Torah this way can also be considered "open to interpretation".

Who Arranges the Seats?

2010-03-17T12:53:00.011+02:00

Today is Yaakov's secular birthday. Yaakov was born 21 tears ago (author note - I obviously meant to write "years ago" and I hit the next key to the left, but I decided not to fix it and call it a "Freudian slip") in a hospital called Saint Francis. Maayanei Hayeshua wasn't built yet.

St. Francis is very different than Maayanei Hayeshua. For one thing, we couldn't depend on the hashgacha. Aside from that, they have much less births per month and most of the babies are not Jewish. Yaakov was the only baby born that day who wasn't named Patrick.

Night before last I attended a very interesting wedding. On the Kallah's side was Rav Gavriel Sherman. He is a brother to Rav Avraham Sherman who has been widely acclaimed (and disclaimed) for his recent bold rulings concerning geirus. He was in attendance. On the chosson's side was Rav Yitzchak Bar Chaim. He is one of the founders and administrators of Nahal Haredi.

What a match!

You can only imagine who else may have been hanging around that hall!

My invitation to the wedding came from Rav Bar Chaim. For one thing, we both regularly attend a shiur given by the Admor of Tolna on Thursday nights. But it wasn't the shiur that brought us to know each other. It was Patrick --er, um-- I mean Yaakov.

Yaakov is signing up for Nachal Charedi!

And as I danced at the wedding, I was thinking about how, even though my primary guidance for my boys is toward long term careers in the Beis Midrash, I am so very proud of my oldest boy, Yaakov (who incidentally finished Shisha Sidrei Mishna 3 times as well as number of masechtos), and the path he has taken thus far.

And the next thing that I was thinking about is an exchange that I had with Rabbi (Emes V'Emunah) Harry Maryles last August about our hashkafic differences that went as follows (he is in dark red, I am in navy blue):

>>What makes you think I don't support learning in Kolel?

I am sure you support learning in Kollel, but it is learning in Kollel by your standards and stipulations. What we call here: b’eravon mugbal.

>>Because I don't think it is ethical to abuse a gov't program?! ...even if it is technically legal?

No. It is because you think that the remedy for it needs to be undertaken by the Kollelniks in the form of advanced secular education that compromises the learning as opposed to campaigning for more Torah support (that people like you and me would have to undertake) to ensure that a young Kollel guy can subsist on a Kollel wage and not need government assistance. It’s what I wrote in my post but you haven’t addressed anything besides that it’s beneath contempt.

>>My son nort onlhy learns all day buirt riuns a night kollel with my full support!

I am sure you are very proud of him. I am also sure that this is not what you directed him to do when he was growing up.

Our kids don't always do what we tell them to. But, oft-times, that's the way it should be.

There was something very ironic here which brought to mind a story that I heard on a taped lecture from Rabbi Berel Wein. Rabbi Wein begins his talk with this anecdote (this is all from memory; I apologize for inaccuracies):

An airplane story.

I needed to travel and arrived at the airport with ample time to check in for my flight. Unfortunately, there was a strike going on and the desk was staffed with fill-ins who were working much slower than usual. I had no choice but to wait my turn in line and the wait seemed interminable. After a long while I finally reached the check-in counter with only minutes to go to flight time. I presented my ticket and expected to be issued a seat and a boarding pass.
To my surprise I was told that I no longer had a confirmed reservation for the flight.

"Why not?"

"Well, you see sir. If you do not check in by 15 minutes prior to flight time, the computers automatically cancel your reservation."

"Well, that's not my fault. I was here with plenty of time. I cannot be faulted that your staff took so long to receive me. In any case, why don't you just reissue the reservation and give me a seat?"

"There are no coach seats left. That is your ticket class."

"Well, I have a ticket with a confirmed reservation and I was here in plenty of time. Please find me a seat on the plane."

"I am very sorry sir but the plane is full. All coach seats have been issued. There were some people in the line who were moved from other flights and they were given the seats of those who didn't check in within 15 minutes. I am sorry but I have no seats for you."

"I refuse to be penalized due to your difficulties and especially if I was held back in line because of others who were not booked on this flight. Do you mean to say that there are absolutely no seats at all on this flight?"

"Well there is one seat left in first class."

"I'm willing to sacrifice."

So seeing that she had no grounds to refuse, she reluctantly issued me a boarding pass for a first class seat.

As I boarded the plane, I understood why this was the last empty seat. The flight attendant informed me that the gentleman in the adjacent seat is one of the vice presidents of the airline. In fact he was sitting with his papers and personal effects taking up the empty seat. When he saw that a passenger was going to be placed in what he thought would be a free seat, he grudgingly collected his items and resigned himself to this inconvenience.

All through the flight we barely spoke. We only had a short conversation of pleasantries where I told him that I am a Rabbi on my way to some official business. And, no, I don't usually fly first class but my reservation was cancelled by the computer and this was the only seat available for me. As a way of concluding our brief conversation he remarked to me:

"Rabbi, you and I don't seem to have much in common."

To which I responded, "Well, I think there is one thing we both very much have in common."

"And what may that be?"

"Neither you nor I paid for this first class seat!"

So his son runs a night Kollel and the father is proud and supportive even though it does not truly meet his personal principles (it goes against them, actually). And my son is joining the army and I am proud and supportive even though it does not truly meet my personal principles (but it is definitely not against them).

So, like Rabbi Wein teaches us - you never know who is going to sit where. And you never know whose weddings you will dance at. There is Somebody Else who arranges the seating. And we can both be proud even if neither one of us actually "paid" for their seat.

Uncle Why Leaves the Jews "Open to Interpretation"

2010-03-12T00:38:00.020+02:00

Hi, boys and girls.

It seems like a lot of people have been confusing me with my "cousin" in Cincinatti, Uncle Jay. But I can assure you that we only look alike.

Looks like we've been having our fill of natural disasters, boys and girls. More earthquakes in Chile, Alaska, Turkey, and Avigdor Lieberman's office. And snowstorms on the east coast are knocking down all the eruvs! Vice President Biden was visiting and he refused to daven in my shul for Shabbos (and I don't live in Ramat Shlomo). But it looks like we may have avoided one natural(ization) disaster... the Knesset voted down the latest conversion bill.

And that brings me to Uncle Why's Jews word for this week:

HALACHA

Halacha literally means "way to go" and it is just that. It basically refers to all the rules we have to follow in order to be proper Jews.

Now, the term as we use it goes all the way back to Talmudic times where the word הלכה appears about 14 times in the Mishna and its Aramaic counterpart הלכתא appears about 825 times in the Babylonian Talmud. As such, it has come to mean "the way to go in accordance to the tenets of the Talmud".

This does not mean that the term originated then. It is safe to assume that the term was taken from the Torah itself. Not only do we find this terminology openly expressed by the prototype convert Yisro in Shmos 18:20:　
כ וְהִזְהַרְתָּה אֶתְהֶם אֶת-הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת-הַתּוֹרת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם אֶת-הַדֶּרֶךְ יֵלְכוּ בָהּ וְאֶת-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן:

And by Moshe Rabbenu in Devarim 28:9 and, of course, by HKBH Himself in my all time favorite pasuk (Vayikra 26:3): אִם-בְּחֻקּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת-מִצְוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אתָם :

But it is craftily encoded in this pasuk (Devarim 6:24):

וַיְצַוֵּנוּ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת ה' אלקנו לְטוֹב לָנוּ כָּל-הַיָּמִים לְחַיּתֵנוּ כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה

Notice how all three of the pasukim that I displayed are discussing the חקים - the laws.

Now, I don't think that I really need to explain to you what HALACHA is, boys and girls, because since you are all on the Internet (which many people hold is against HALACHA) you are all probably familiar with a nifty little site call Wikipedia which has a reasonably accurate entry all about it.

Only it likes to spell it: HALAKHA.

Now, this entry tells us that today there are two different approaches to HALACHA: Orthodox and Non-Orthodox (the article calls it "Conservative" but what's the difference?)

Here is how it explains the Orthodox approach:

Orthodox Jews believe that halakha is a religious system, whose core represents the revealed will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis made many additions and interpretations of Jewish Law, they did so only in accordance with regulations they believe were given to them by Moses on Mount Sinai (see Deuteronomy 5:8-13). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the second temple. They were then recorded in the Mishnah, and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history, including today.

Orthodox Judaism believes that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted code of Jewish law is known as the Shulchan Aruch. As such, no rabbi has the right to change Jewish law unless they clearly understand how it coincides with the precepts of the Shulchan Aruch. Later commentaries were accepted by many rabbis as final rule, however, other rabbis may disagree.

What these paragraphs allude to is Uncle Why's second Jews word for this week:

MESORA

This refers to a hierarchical chain of Halachic process that was introduced to us in the first Mishna of Pirkei Avot. What it says is that we have a chain of tradition of Halachic process that can be categorized into Halachic eras. Those being as follows:

The Torah itself (G-d or "Sinai") > Moshe > Joshua > Elders > Prophets > Anshei Knesset HaGedola > Zugot > Tanaim > Amoraim > Savoraim > Geonim > Rishonim > Achronim > Uncle Why.

Our MESORA is that once something was interpreted or established in any given era, it becomes inviolable. The only thing that is left "open to interpretation" are the "loose ends" or fine details that may not yet have been interpreted.

For example, the Torah clearly tells us that we must "recite these words" (i.e., the Shema) at the time of our rising. There is nothing left open to interpretation about the fact that we must recite these words. That is the Halacha from the Torah itself. From the "Sinai Era". Nevertheless, we do not yet know how to define the "time of rising". So this "detail" does remain open for interpretation for the time being. This detail in fact had to wait until the era of the Tanaim. There, we had two valid opinions: Rabi Eliezer who said that it ends at sunrise and Rabi Yehoshua who said that it ends at "the third hour". Perhaps before that era there were other sages with other opinions, but from that point on, there were no other opinions expressed. Thus, we consider it audacious for someone from a later era to say, "Hey, since these Tanaim argued about it, we see that it is open to interpretation, so lets find new ways to interpret it."

Not only are these now the only two valid opinions, but we apply our rules of psak (in this case that we generally do not rule like Rabi Eliezer due to his status as a "shamuti") to determine that the Halacha is like Rabi Yehoshua. So now we know that (1) we must recite Shema and (2) the we must do it before the third hour. Finito. Nothing left to talk about.

Almost.

We still do not know how exactly we count an Halachic hour to know when the third hour actually arrives. This was indeed "open to interpretation" until the era of the early Achronim when the matter was clarified into two valid opinions - sunrise to sunset (Gra) or alos hashachar to dusk (Magen Avrohom). Though in this case there is no primacy so both opinions are valid, the matter is no longer considered "open to interpretation" to allow for a new opinion (Belz?).

So now we can even look at a calendar and know that (1) we must recite Shema (Sinai) (2) we must complete it before the third hour (Mishna/Tanaim) and (3) today this means either 8:13 or 8:49 (Achronim).

Now, let's have a quick look at the Non-Orthodox approach:

The view held by Conservative Judaism is that while God is real, the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense.

Get that? G-d is real but the Torah is not literally His word.

I wonder - who wrote this? I must admit that this is even beyond the capabilities of Uncle Why to explain! If G-d literally gave us the Torah (Rambam Principle #8), then it must be literally the word of G-d. And if it is not literally the word of G-d, it can only mean that they believe that G-d did not dictate the Torah. In short, they believe the Torah is man-made.

Let's go on.

However, in this view the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority.

What exactly did G-d do at his revelation if He did not dictate the Torah? Why do they believe there (literally?) was a revelation if all the other parts of the revelation story are not literally true?

In any case, let us take a tally. This "viewpoint" seems to believe in Rambam's principles 1, 2, and 3 that G-d is real. Maybe they also believe in 4 and 5. But they do not believe in #8 that our Torah was given to Moshe from HKBH. And, if so, they cannot believe in #9 that He won't change it. Why not change it? He never gave it! Consequently they cannot go with #6 and #7 for if the Torah is not "true", then the words of the prophets can't be any truer. #10 may stand that HKBH knows all of our actions but reward and punishment (#11) must be out because if there are no G-d-given commandments, there cannot be G-dly repercussions. Finally #12 and 13 are discussed in the Talmud as directly derived from the Torah. But if the Torah is not the literal "word of G-d" there is nothing to derive.

Final score - maximum 6 principles in and at least 7 principles out.

In this view, traditional Jewish law is still seen as binding. Jews who hold by this view generally try to use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are in some cases more willing to change Jewish law in the present.

You mean to change traditional Jewish law? I thought it was binding?

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its Rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by takkanah (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements and/or views of ethics.

In other words, if it doesn't work for you, change it. And if you can change some of it, you can change all of it. What does G-d care? He never gave us any of it anyway. He just "revealed' Himself.

And this must be why there are so very few Conservative Jews who recite the Shema every day upon rising (and when they lay down). It must be inconsistent with modern requirements and/or views of ethics.

Bottom line is that there is a view point in Halacha that says that G-d is real, He revealed Himself to us and inspired us to write a Torah on our own that will be adjustable to suit every modern whim.

How enlightened! I must tell you that I would find it easier to believe in a virgin birth.

מִי חָכָם וְיָבֵן אֵלֶּה נָבוֹן וְיֵדָעֵם כִּי-יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי ה' וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם וּפשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם:

And now it's time...

...for one of your Jews questions. Actually the one that inspired this post.

However, this post is much too long as it is and the question will have to wait for a future post.

So...so long for this week, boys and girls. Tune in whenever I am ready to answer more of your Jews questions and remember...

Great Halachic Men make great Jews!!

Strings Attached - An Eruv Story

2010-03-09T00:12:00.010+02:00

I am considering to write a post on a very timely controversial subject. It is also quite a sensitive subject and I am not certain as to the best way to approach it.

As I was thinking about it, I was inspired to write about a much more passe' controversial subject which is not nearly so sensitive: the issues of community eruvs from the Chareidi perspective.

The truth is that I wrote a whole chapter about it for One Above and Seven Below. What is more interesting is that it is the very first chapter that I wrote when I first started writing One Above and Seven Below. This was before I decided to split the book into two volumes. Once I did that, it was clear that this chapter is from the material that would go into Volume 2, so it didn't make it into the book. If Volume 2 does come out (not any time soon, unfortunately), I do hope to include it.

The story is absolutely true even if all the names of people and places are not. And it happened back in 1997. The purpose of writing the story was to help my readers understand why something as benign and overtly beneficial as a community eruv would be a source of discord. And there is an important point in there which may help explain the Chareidi perspective on some much more timely, pertinent controversial issues.

Which will probably be passe' by the time I get to it.

I now present to you, the first chapter written for One Above and Seven Below:

Strings Attached - The Story of the Eruv in Hammerstone Hills

Strings Attached

Matanos L'Evyonim - American Style

2010-03-01T19:37:00.003+02:00

Here in Eretz Yisrael we have been talking the past few days about the new guidelines for Matanos L'Evyonim in America:

כל הפושט רגל, נותנים לו

We give indiscriminately to anybody who is "poshet regel".

"Poshet regel" is the Hebrew term for going bankrupt!

Tax Season in Shushan - Purim Repost

2010-02-18T16:27:00.005+02:00

משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה

I have absolutely no time to write, but the least I can do is repost my award winning Purim Torah (this won the Kibbitzer Prize) about Chachmas Nashim and Offshore Bank Accounts.

You may download it and send it around if you like it.

Good Shabbos!

Iyei Hayam Basic

Ad K'dei Kach - The Ten Commandments Revisited

2010-02-12T02:14:00.017+02:00

I think Orthodoxy is on its way out. Both as a term and as an institution.

The problem is that as a term it is undefinable. It's a Greek word that means: Ortho = straight or correct; dox = opinion or way of thought

So it means someone who has the correct way of thought.

Well, apparently, we now have a variety of "Orthodoxes" or, in other words, we have plenty of "correct ways of thought" to choose from. There is Ultra Orthodox and Modern Orthodox and Ultra-Modern Orthodox and Modern-Ultra Orthodox and I just heard of a new one (courtesy of my friend who is "Centrist" Orthodox): Open Orthodox which obviously implies that there must be a Closed Orthodox (or is it Closet Orthodox?). Everything except just plain Orthodox.

And if they are all Orthodox then they must be all correct. Is that correct?

Evidently, there is nothing Jewish about the term Orthodox and so, there are no Jewish concepts that can be applied to give it a firm definition.

So it doesn't have one.

I wrote about this at length in a post that I actually posted twice (click HERE).

My logic tells me that there cannot be so many different kinds of "correct" and that some varieties must actually be "incorrect" (or a bit un-Orthodox) and as such, they will ultimately self-destruct as is the manner of most incorrect philosophies.

Consequently, a lot of "Orthodoxy" won't last.

So what Orthodoxy will last?

The Orthodoxy that also carries Jewish terms that have clear definitions in Jewish ideals. I wrote all about it in Chapter 9 of my book. These are the Yesharim, Tzaddikim, Chassidim and Kedoshim of our Shabbos prayers at Shochen Ad. The Tzaddikim, Anavim and Yareim in Tehillim, or the "Chareidim l'dvar Hashem" in Yeshaya (and in One Above and Seven Below).

As I wrote in my book and explained to many people who don't feel like reading it, every type of Jew has their opinion of what is the "correct way of thought". What I try to do in my book is to present G-d's opinion. And so I merely quote what G-d tells us in the Torah with a lot of emphasis on Parshat Bechukosai.

It appears that many Jews that fall somewhere in wide range of "Orthodox" aren't ready to handle Parshat Bechukosai. Why don't we just stick with the Ten Commandments? The essence of Judaism is the Ten Commandments so we can safely say that somebody who keeps the Ten Commandments is Orthodox.

Well, last week we read about the Ten Commandments and this week we have a bit of a follow through on the great event including the grand declaration: Naaseh V'Nishma.

But how many of us really understand what we are reading in these two Parshiot? And how many of us understand the chareidi perspective of the Ten Commandments themselves?

To clarify this, I wrote a fascinating Torah essay about the true meaning of the connection between Parshat Yisro and Parshat Mishpatim and what is going on between the two parts of the story of Mattan Torah. It is titled Ad K'dei Kach - The Ten Commandments Revisited and it is presented here as an iPaper document. Parts of it I heard from various darshanim, parts of it are posited by the Ramban at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim and the rest of it is what I built out of all the parts.

It is meant to answer the following questions:

What is the meaning of the short list of unrelated mitvos at the end of Parshat Yisro?
Why is the narrative of Mattan Torah interrupted by all of the detailed Halachos in the front of Parshat Mishpatim?
What is Rashi really referring to when he says that the opening "vav" in Parshat Mishpatim is adding it on to the previous words?
Why, as opposed to some "Centrist" thinkers, there is nothing "Orthodox" about "Open" Orthodoxy?

So for your oneg Shabbos, I hereby present Ad K'dei Kach - the Ten Commandments Revisited

Note - I have been encountering difficulties with the embedded document display. If the document does not display in the window, please click on the link to view.
Ad Kdei Kach- The Ten Commandments Revisited

While We're on the Subject of Emunah - The Final Judgement

2010-02-05T00:16:00.005+02:00

My last few posts have dealt with some of the intricaties of Emunah. The jury's been out for a while but now let's hear from the judge.

Somebody sent me the following story in an email last week. I have no idea if it's true but it should be. Behold:

FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY

In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do.. Your client, counsel, is
woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 in The Bible states, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, he already has a day. April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

They don't make judges like this any more!

A Gorilla for My Megilla

2010-02-04T23:54:00.004+02:00

Eureka!

After searching out many candidates for a subscription based email marketing service for this blog, I have finally found one that best meets my requirements:

Low price
Ease of use
Low price
Powerful features
Low price

And so, I have registered onto MailChimp to provide email distribution of my blog posts.

MailChimp offers free service (that was the price I was looking for) for up to 500 subscribers and up to 3000 total sends per month. For the time being that is more than enough and so, I am swinging with the Chimp.

My initial subscription list consists of my personal acquaintances and my 1A7B contact list. A number of people who have corresponded with me in the past will find their emails to have been automatically subscribed. Please feel free to unsubscribe if you are receiving my posts by email and would prefer not to.

For any reader who wishes to subscribe, there is a brand new subscription form in the left hand sidebar.

I highly recommend MailChimp for this venture because, besides the low price, they don't put up with any monkey business. And that's important because...

...it's a jungle out there.

Uncle Why Answers More of Your Jews Questions

2010-02-02T23:58:00.017+02:00

Hi, boys and girls.

Uncle Why is back and, in this episode, Uncle Why is immediately going to answer one of your Jews questions.

This one comes from Rachel somewhere in the UK.

--Hi, Rachel ---

and it was posted as a comment in my previous post. Rachel writes:

Dear Uncle Why,

So, if someone believes completely in the 13 Principles of Faith, but does not keep shomer Shabbat (for whatever reason) - where do they fall?

Well, Rachel, they fall into a very deep hole where nobody wants to go...

Okay, okay. I think I need to shed the "Uncle Why" personna - for now - and get serious (no easy task for ~~Uncle Why~~ me).

Before I go on, I think it is important to know a few things about our questioner, Rachel. Rachel is an exceedingly sincere, passionate and conscientious individual. Her heart is definitely in the right place. She is also left handed, so her brain is definitely in the right place. And she is striving to embrace Judaism. So her soul is definitely in the right place. Sadly, she is from Britain, so the rest of her is definitely in the wrong place :-(. Rachel has come across my book and has actually written a glowing review which is available on her blog (available HERE) and I am very grateful to her for that (if only you would upload the review to Amazon!). If I had to guess why she liked the book, l would say it's because I wear tefillin on my right arm just like she does. I wish Rachel much bracha and hatzlacha and hope that she merits to become a true ger tzeddek (I don't know how to say that in the feminine).

Now, let's deal with her question.

You must know, Rachel, that you compromised your question by adding those three innocent looking words in the parentheses - for whatever reason. If one professes to believe in the 13 Principles and still does not observe Shabbat, it makes a whale of a difference what the reason is.

It goes without saying that, as a rule, the truest indicator that one truly adheres to one's beliefs is that they maintain a lifestyle according to those beliefs. So in a typical case, one who is not Shomer Shabbat is essentially demonstrating that s/he does not truly believe in all 13 principles. Nevertheless, for this to be conclusive, there are a number of criteria that must be taken into account. 3 in particular come to mind.

The first and most relevant to your situation is:

Where is the individual coming from?

Now here is the rub. Although belief in thought and belief in practice are interdependent in the final analysis, there is a maturation process (much like the fine Scotches that your Northern neighbors produce). In almost all cases, the two components - religious conviction and religious practice - do not come to an individual at the same time.

Jews such as myself were born observant. This means we were taught to observe Jewish rituals and avoid prohibitions way before we were intellectually mature enough to fully believe in why we do them. But by experiencing the splendor of these practices together with studying their source and their meaning, most of us eventually come to internalize the principles of belief as well. This is one of the methods of synergizing religious practice with religious belief and I wrote about it expressly on pages 259-260 in my book in the chapter about Kids at Risk. I called this the Naaseh V'Nishma approach.

Sadly, there are those who come to question and reject the beliefs and fall away. Some of whom, though they claim not to believe, even maintain the practices for social reasons and have recently coined a term to express it: Orthoprax.

The second method works exactly the opposite direction. And it applies to Jews who were brought up non-observant as well as to people like yourself, non-Jews who enter the covenant of Judaism. In this method one first adopts the beliefs and through the beliefs, one comes to sowly but surely take on the Jewish lifestyle. I called this the Atta Yadati approach that was introduced by Yitro, the first convert to Judaism from the time that we were given the Torah.

Just as the Naaseh V'Nishma approach does not necessarily occur overnight, neither would the Atta Yadati method. It may take some time.

So to answer your question, if one professes belief in the 13 principles and after a substantial period of time - let's say 5 years or so - still cannot observe Shabbat properly, I would question his level of Emunah. But for one who is in a transitional phase, it is no contradiction if the two components - practice and belief - have not yet blended together.

The second criterion to examine is how are we defining "observe the Shabbat".

You see, there are two aspects to the mitzva of Shabbat: Zachor and Shamor.

Zachor means to commemorate the Shabbat by saying a Kiddush on wine as well as lighting candles, wearing special clothes, and eating special foods (Cholent???). The part about not turning on lights, watching the telly or the computer, and not driving as well as all the other forbidden activities is all wrapped up in the Shamor part. It goes without saying that it is much easier to observe the zachor aspect than it is to observe the Shamor aspect (unless you prefer to sleep all day long).

Now you seem to indicate from your writing that you do keep a lot of Shabbat, just not "all of it". Is this to say that you are not Shomer Shabbat?

So here I would recall the first criterion and say that much has to do with where you are coming from. For one who was raised to observe Shabbat and all 39 categories of activities, refusing to observe some of them may be enough to consider the individual as a Mechalel Shabbat (violator of Shabbat). But for one who was brought up with no knowledge of Shabbat, even a partial observance of Shabbat may be considered a bone-fide Shomer Shabbat in the initial stages.(Don't hold me to this, it's not really up to me.) Incidentally, I once heard one of my mentors, Rabbi Avigdor Miller, ZT"L, say in a lecture that if one is used to smoking 30 cigarettes/day and on Shabbat he decides to only smoke 25 in deferrence to Shabbat, he has attained some level of being Shomer Shabbat (don't try this at home, boys and girls).

The third criterion is, as I indicated above, to examine why it is that the individual is not completely Shabbat observant.

The mitzvot are meant to be challenging. If they were not, there would not be much merit in keeping them. We are all subject to temptations and pressures and it is not necessarily a breach of faith for one to succumb. Still, the argument can be made that if one firmly believes that he is being tested, and that he has the ability to withstand the "test", and that withstanding the test will eventually bring immeasurable reward (the Joseph Syndrome), he would not succumb and thus it does indicate a lack of faith. Yet, we cannot put transgression under duress in the same category as transgression without any duress.

Many of us are aware that in the early 20th century United States, it was virtually impossible for any person who was not self-employed to obtain Shabbat-free employment. This affected thousands upon thousands of pious Jewish immigrants. There were a few who stood firm in their observance (see the story about my great grandfather ZT"L on page 274 of my book) but the majority gave up Torah observance entirely. Yet I have heard of a number of pious "Shabbat violators" such as one individual who worked a graveyard shift (midnight to 8 am) in some factory 7 days a week. His peers thought he was forced to take the graveyard shift out of desparation but he said that he actually volunteered in particular for this shift. This is so he can go to shul and daven on Friday night, go home and make Kiddush and eat, and then go to work, get back in time for the morning davening, go home and make kiddush again and go to sleep. In this way nobody has to know that he is Mechalel Shabbat.

The point is that we can assume that this person kept the Shabbat properly for all the time he did not need to work. We can also assume that if he reached a point where he could forego this factory job, he would resume full Shabbat observance. He only put the Shabbat into "temporary suspension" for the time it was necessary. He did not succumb to the "all or nothing" mentality that caused so many others to give up Torah observance entirely once they could not keep Shabbat for part of the day.

So, to summarize and to put it all together, Criterion 2 says to us that partial observance of Shabbat may be considered as a "full" observance of Shabbat if there are inhibitions which prevent full observance for the time being and the individual would resolve to be completely Shomer Shabbat when these inhibitions no longer apply. Those inhibitions may be inexperience (Criterion 1, hailing from a non-observant background) or pressures and temptations (Criterion 3). Thus, if one believes that G-d created His world in 6 days and that he commanded us to observe Shabbat to commemorate it AND he is not plagued by these other inhibitions, he will be fully Shomer Shabbat. But one who is not fully observant and has none of these inhibitions standing between himself and the observance of Shabbat can only be sufferring from a lack of Emunah.

Thank you for writing and thank you for your review (don't forget Amazon!) and good luck to you!

Uncle Why Explains the Jews

2010-01-28T22:55:00.005+02:00

Hi, boys and girls.

Uncle Why's video doesn't seem to be working this week so we are just going to have to blog it.
Well, boys and girls, it looks like so much has been happening in the past few weeks - Obama says that he was "overconfident" about ~~imposing~~ implementing a Mideast solution, the horrible earthquake in Haiti that has shaken all of us up, Massachusetts elects a Republican, Britain announces a terror alert and cancels all flights from Yemen, and the dybbuk is still not out! - I think that many of us find some of these things a bit hard to believe.

And that brings me to Uncle Why's Jews word for this week:

EMUNAH אמונה

Now, this is not an easy word to explain, boys and girls, especially since there is so little of it here in the Blogosphere. The more I look, the more I see blogs by people telling us how much EMUNAH they don't have. But we will do our best.

Now, some of us think that EMUNAH is a religious Zionist women's organization who's "mission is to help alleviate the burdens of Israel’s social problems". And as long as you give them money, you are a very good Jew.

This is at best EMUNAH peshuta, boys and girls.

No. EMUNAH is really believing that HKBH runs the whole world, and, if we are good Jews, He gives us money. And lots of other stuff. Just like it says in Parshat Bechukosai.

Now this may sound rather simple, boys and girls, and lots of folks will be plenty sure that they have as much EMUNAH as they need but it might just be that they are fooling themselves.

Let me illustrate it with a true story. One day, boys and girls, Uncle Why was waiting in a front room to meet a distinguished person. There were other people also waiting to see this person, and this included a young couple who outwardly did not display any signs of religious observance. Since we were all waiting, we started to chat. In the course of the conversation, the female of the species commented:

אתה חושב שאנחנו לא מאמינים. אנחנו כן מאמינים כמוך. (You think we are not believers. We are believers just like you!)

Uncle Why explained to her as follows:

From our perspective, EMUNAH is not some general concept that starts and stops with believing that some kind of Supreme Being exists. We have a charter to our belief system with a detailed list of provisions (13 of them!). We do not merely believe that G-d exists, but also that He created everything that exists, He enables all things that occur, He communicates to us through prophecy, He authored the Torah and gave it to us, the Torah is immutable (that will be next week's Jews word,
boys and girls), He knows what we do and think, and He will reward us for following His rules and and punish us for breaking them.
(And I left some out.)

So there is a bit of fine print in our belief system. Now you may believe, BUT, if you don't believe in everything on this list, with all the bells and whistles, then you really cannot say that you are a believer "just like me".

So here is where things get so confusing, boys and girls. Lots of Jewish people actually pick and choose which parts of the list to believe and which to not. And we have a new concept:

Selective EMUNAH!

Uncle Why wrote about it in his book, boys and girls (pages 203-204). Here is what I wrote:

I have already written in the Introduction to this book why secular Jews are non-observant. To be observant, one must believe in at least these articles of the 13 principles of faith:
1. There is a G-d (who created us and everything that we can perceive)
2. G-d gave us rules (his Torah)
3. G-d is aware of everything that we do (and say and think) – in short, he knows whether or not we follow the rules
4. G-d will reward us for compliance and punish us for transgression of the aforementioned rules.
I wrote that some secular Jews simply don’t believe in G-d. They never get to first base. Why don’t they believe in G-d? They will say that it is because they don’t see Him. Of course, we will say something else. We will say that it is because they don’t look for Him.
And why don’t they look for Him?
It is because this group is very intelligent. And they know that if they look for him they may actually find Him. And if they find Him, they will not be able to intellectually reject principles 2, 3, and 4. And they will have to follow rules that they are not prepared to follow.If they find G-d, G-d will control their lives. They don’t want any G-d controlling their lives so they must make sure that there isn’t One.
This group is easy to comprehend. The other secular Jews are a bit more puzzling. They claim to believe in G-d yet still reject principle 2. And if not number 2, then numbers 3 or 4. How they manage to do this is beyond me. They must be even smarter than the first group. But it shows me one thing – that even if one believes in G-d, he can still find some pretext to avoid subjecting himself to following rules that he is not prepared to follow.

All this is discussed in the Ramban at the end of last week's Parsha (Shmos, Bo 13:16).

And so, boys and girls, we learn a new meaning to EMUNAH SHLEIMAH - COMPLETE faith. No, it doesn't mean having complete faith in the particular things that you happen to believe in. It means to have faith in the complete list of Jewish beliefs, whether they make you feel good or not.

And, now it's time...

...to answer one of your Jews questions. This one comes from Moshe who is the only one who ever wrote me a letter in Hebrew.

--Hi, Moshe!--

Moshe writes:

L'Chvod Uncle Why,

מחד, הספר טוען בצדק רב, כי החרדים אינם אלא יורשים וממשיכים טבעיים וזהים ליהודי הדורות כולם, והמחדשים הם אחרים. מאידך, אין נכון להוציא יהודים מאמינים אחרים מן הכלל. כל יהודי ירא שמיים ממשיך לאותה המסורת מסיני. שמירת שבת בפרט ושמירת תורה ומצוות בכלל, הן הם סימני היהודי הנצחי.

On the one hand, the book claims, with much justification, that the chareidim are merely the heirs and natural successors and emulators of the Jews of past generations and the "reformers" are "others". However, it is not proper to exclude other believing Jews from the mainstream. Every G-dfearing Jew continues this tradition from Sinai. Shabbos observance in particular and observing Torah and mitzvos in general, these are the signs of the Eternal Jew.

(In total, Moshe wrote a whole lot more than this.)

Well, Moshe, you seem to have missed the main thrust of the book that was arrived at in Chapter 9. And that is that every Jew who meets the description that you described after the word "However" is a chareidi. There is no such thing as a "chareidi" and "other Jews who are believers". There are not two distinct entities. It doesn't matter what kind of kippa one wears or what they call themselves, the Eternal Jew that you describe is a chareidi. One who keeps Shabbos and Torah and mitzvos and is a true believer is a chareidi. (Moshe's mindset is stuck on the conventional Quaker Oats/Fagin - QOF - chareidi that I discuss and dismiss in Chapter 3).

But, Moshe, there is an amazing phenomenon that even many Orthodox Jews who observe Shabbos and keep Torah and mitzvos have not fully studied all of the principles of EMUNAH and may be missing some of the nuances that are part of the package but make a world of difference (the very fine print).

For example, many, many Orthodox Jews have trouble even with the very first Principle of Faith. Particularly the second part of Principle number 1. Principle 1 says that we believe that G-d created all that exists. But it says something else, as well.

It says that G-d "does all that is done".

This means that every activity that is perpetrated by man or beast is actually G-d's doing. We are only agents of G-d and we are fooled by our gift of free will to assume that we have done the deed ourselves. Thus people may think that if they are self-sufficient, it is their skills and their cunning that accounts for their affluence. They earned their wealth and it is theirs.

But Principle 1 tells us otherwise. It tells us that G-d orchestrated his skills and his cunning and the wealth that one has is his for the sole purpose of using it for other goals that G-d wants to accomplish through him.

But so many Orthodox Jews, even those who profess to have full EMUNAH, even those who write blogs with titles that profess ideas like truth and EMUNAH do not really believe this.

They believe in "Kochi V'otzem yadi".

One does not need the Rambam to compose the 13 articles of faith. Almost all of them are written directly in the Torah. The Rambam merely compiled and codified them.

The second part of Principle #1 is expressly written in the Torah in Devarim 4:35 and 4:39. And the explanation that I just gave is right there in Devarim 9:18.

And so, Moshe, anybody who believes completely in what the 13 principles mean is as much a "chareidi" as anybody else. But somebody, no matter how much he keeps Shabbos and how much he pays for his esrog, who doesn't believe completely in what it says in the 13 Principles, is a mechusar EMUNAH and, even though he is a believer, he is not a believer "just like us".

Well, that's it for this week, boys and girls.

Join us every so often when Uncle Why explains the Jews and just remember --- true believers are great Jews!

Golden Oldies from Parshat Beshalach

2010-01-27T23:48:00.005+02:00

As any loyal reader can tell, I am having a very difficult time trying to find time for writing quality posts. I have even started a few posts but wasn't able to develop them before other issues supplanted them.

So---it's rerun time again.

Last year at Parshat Beshalach I put out two juicy posts. The first was the fifth installment in my Shidduchim series entitled:

Shidduchim V: There Must Be 18 Ways to Find Your Beloved

Here I posted an anthology of 18 explanations to the famous Chazal that: וקשה לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף
That it is "as difficult to match couples as it was to split the Reed Sea."

I posted the anthology on iPaper and to date it has attracted 390 reads, the most of all the documents that I posted there.

The second one was the fanciful story of Perl the Peanut Woman and

The Miracle of the Mahn - Then and Now

but something tells me the story is not purely a work of fiction and neither is Perl the Peanut Woman.

Both of these are insightful and delightful reading.

If I don't get another chance to post... Good Shabbos!

Shabtai Zvi, Bar Kochva and the E(x)ternal Jewish Family

2010-01-10T15:36:00.012+02:00

I don't need to be a world class pundit. There are many bloggers who do, but not I. I do not shy away from discussing any topic, but I do not need to discuss every topic. My mission is to present and/or clarify the Torah's perspective on relevant issues. I consider this my contribution to the blogosphere because, Heaven knows, it is sorely lacking. Hence, if I have something to contribute, I am happy to write about it. If I have nothing to contribute, there is no point (but I can always pledge...).

So you might say that I was a bit thrown when a reader suggested that I write about the EJF debacle. Like, do you mean to say that you haven't already read enough?

In any case, here is what the fellow wrote me (in dark red) followed by my reponse (in navy blue). First the entire message:

Rabbi Hirschman:

Perhaps something related to the tremendous chillul Hashem and systemic breakdown of ‘Daas Torah’ over the recent Tropper ‘affair’ would’ve been more appro? I don’t think folks on your side realize how much damage was (and still is being) caused and the ramifications of which will be felt for decades to come. It looks like a decision was made by everyone except for a few yechidim like Rav Shternbuch that “there’s nothing to see here, so just move along!”

And the response:

Perhaps something related to the tremendous chillul Hashem and systemic breakdown of ‘Daas Torah’ over the recent Tropper ‘affair’ would’ve been more appro?
What do you suppose I could possibly say that hasn't already been said by more outspoken people than I?
I don’t think folks on your side realize how much damage was (and still is being) caused and the ramnifications of which will be felt for decades to come.

What do you mean by "your side" (i.e., my side)? My side of what? - the ocean, or the One Above and Seven Below divide? (have you read my book?) Which side are you on?
It looks like a decision was made by everyone except for a few yechidim like Rav Shternbuch that “there’s nothing to see here, so just move along!”

What were the other options?

Though I may be coming across a bit cynical, let me explain something. The "chareidim" and the "gadolim" did not establish EJF. No panel of gadolim or Roshei Yeshiva secretly (or publicly) convened and said, "We need to do something to control geirus or fix intermarried families, let's find some devoted individual and we will appoint him as our emissary to be the geirus-monger for the chareidi world."

And they did not go ahead and find Tropper and recruit him for this noble task on their behalf as if they really needed or wanted an organization like EJF. Such a thing was never on the agenda of any Knessia Gedola or Agudah Convention. Tropper invented EJF all by himself on his own behalf and then he solicited support from some gadolim and Roshei Yeshiva - which, incredibly, he succeeded to obtain (כי צייד בפיו ).

In other words, the gadolim (those who were associated) did not create this monster, not directly nor indirectly. Nevertheless, they fell in with it after the fact and signed on to what turned out to be fraudulent. Some may have fallen for it out of naivete and they genuinely thought it was lishma, some because of monetary incentives as some critics allege, and some due to peermanship (i.e., if Rav Ploni who is very reputable supports it, then I should support it as well).

Note that Tropper never had unanimous support from the Chareidi "establishment". There were many that were suspicious from the start and never supported him.

All this is exactly what happened by Shabtai Zvi and when Rabbi Akiva supported Bar Kochva. It is a case of human failing.

Thus, from "our side" the debacle is that some gadolim and Roshei Yeshiva supported and endorsed an unworthy undertaking - which they did not establish. On an individual basis, they certainly need to answer for it, but as for the Klal, the only remedy is to say, "Sorry. I got suckered in. From here on I don't support it or endorse it..." and just move along.

Thank you for writing.

V'Chol Maasecha BaSefer Nichtavim: Big Brother is Watching...What I Eat

2010-01-07T14:11:00.011+02:00

Most of us Jews are aware of the fact that the High Holy-Days - Rosh HaShannah to Yom Kippur and on to Hoshanna Rabba - are designated for doing teshuva. Even non-observant Jews like Sandy Koufax knew that (kinda, sorta).

The more reverent among us know that there are other periods within the year that have special siginficance for teshuva. These would be the three weeks of mourning when we grieve the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and Sefiras HaOmer when we mourn the tragic deaths of the 24,000 students of Rabi Akiva. We associate these calamities to our shortcomings in interpersonal relationships, bein adam l'chaveiro - lashon hara, sinas chinam, zilzul chaveirim and chachamim - and resolve to work on them.

But for chareidim who actually live up to the title, and most notably the Chassidim, we are aware of another period. This is the period between the 10th of Teves and the beginning of Adar that we call the period of Shovavim - שובבים. This is now!

Shovavim stands for the six Torah portions that we are about to read:

שמות - וארא - בא - בשלח - יתרו - משפטים >> שובבי"ם

And it is based on the well known pasuk (Yirmiyahu 3:22):　
　
שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים אֶרְפָּה מְשׁוּבֹתֵיכֶם

Return (repent) you rebellious sons (shovavim), so that I may be healed from your repentance...

Shovavim is for a more personal level of Teshuva. It is more for rectifying the bein adam l'makom or, even more so, for bein adam l'atzmo, rectifying the damage that one has done to himself through his misdeeds.

In today's day and age, doing sins is easier than ever due to our affluence and advanced technology. Nevertheless, doing teshuva is also easier than ever due to our affluence and advanced technology.

How so?

Because today's technology helps us comprehend in physical terms that which 150 years ago was metaphysical and could only be envisaged and relegated to faith:

Big Daddy (HKBH) is Watching Us!

Of course, we have no clue as to what really goes on Upstairs (unless we see those clips about seances and clinical death) but Ravi Akiba clues us in that when the pasuk tells us:

את ה' אלוקיך תירא - the superfluous word, את , is telling us: את לרבות אחיך הגדול

Watch out for Big Brother!

We can guess what Big Daddy can do by knowing what Big Brother can do! And Big Brother can do a lot!

(Actually it is לרבות תלמידי חכמים and I am mixing 2 distinct chazals, but humor me on this one).

Now, if I tell you that Big Brother knows everything about us, the response may be: So, what else is new? or Where have I been?

Privacy issues have been in the headlines for decades. Even before today's high-tech era, there were issues of wire-tapping and disclosure of financial records. Of course, over the past few decades, things have mushroomed as we deal with digital recording, surveillance cameras (which seem to be cropping up in the most intimate of places), computer spyware that tracks your every keystroke, sophisticated satellite images (Google Earth), and we see tabloid reports of microscopic computer chips that can be embedded in everything a person touches, and then into the persons themselves.

Big Brother can know more about us than we can!

And all this should give us an idea of what goes on in the ethereal world! The world of which we are told (2000 years ago in Pirkei Avot 2:1): V'chol maasecha basefer nichtavim. And it should be enough to send us to the Kosel for 40 consecutive days of fasting and prayer - under the watchful eye of the Aish HaTorah 24-Hour webcam and untold other security appparatus!

Now, I am quite aware of all of this. And, like most of us, I have come to terms with it and have learned to conveniently "forget" the fact that Big Brother (Y"Sh) - and Big Daddy (B"H) - is watching every twitch. Yet, something happened this week as the period of Shovavim is ushered in that told me that there is no place to run.

It has reached the makolet!

Over the past 12+ years that we have lived in our little corner of Har Nof, we were blessed to be located in a spot with three makolets (small groceries) within comfortable walking distance. Of course, the one directly across the street is the most convenient - as well as the most overpriced - and so, it became the only one of the three in which I went so far as to maintain a charge account.

For the past 12 years the charge account was opened and handled exactly the way it was for the 12 years that preceeded it and the 12 years before that and before that and before that all the way back to the sugya of chenvani al pinkaso. I present a post-dated check and the grocer (Nissim) writes the amount onto a personalized index card. Every time we purchase, the items are totalled and the total amount is written into the next line in the card. When the money runs out, we present a new check. When the card runs out, the balance is transferred to a brand new card and the old one is destroyed. Thus, in due time, there is no trace of my previous card or of my previous money. Nobody knows what we bought or what we spent (nor which kid actually signed for and if he/she was really from my family or not) and nobody particularly cared. We have fulfilled mitzvas biur!

What a tradition!

Well, about a month and a half ago tragedy struck! After 25 years, Nissim (who has been 28 years old all this time) lost his lease (it was written on the back of an index card). The property was turned over to another experienced makoletan who until now ran a different makolet down the hill. It seems that he lost his lease as well since his rent was hiked and the only entity willing to pay the price is a bank. Now, it may be nice to finally have a bank in Har Nof, but it would have been much more practical ten years ago when there was some money in the neghborhood.

In any case, we were out of a makolet for six weeks while they renovated the facility and manged to find twice as much space in the same area (only in Israel...). I didn't have any charge accounts in the other 2 makolets and there was no point in opening one up for the 2 to 3 weeks that became six and I was at a total loss. How would I feed my family?

Presently, somebody saved my skin by explaining to me that there is such a thing as paper notes called bills and little metal disks that are called coins and that these items together are called cash and these makolets are very kind and they will allow me to by the basic necessities for these bits of cash and I didn't need post dated checks or palstic cards or anything!

What a country!

Finally, after six weeks of purgatory, the new makolet (now called "Supermarket") opend up across the street. I ran to make an accout and yearned to be from the assara rishonim.

I was number 11 (right before the Stillermans).

I approached with my checkbook ready to see my family name written onto a glossy white index card when I was jolted by a thunderbolt.

"We don't use index cards."

What?

"Just swipe your credit card for the amount of credit you want and we put your name in the computer as customer number 11. Now whenever you buy, just tell us '11' and the computer will register the purchase."

Okay. Let's try it. I'll buy some bread and milk and a few other items.

Sure enough, I bought the bread and milk and other items and the new grocer (Avi) scanned it in. I tell him the magic number: "11". He pokes a few boxes on his touchscreen and - voila - out from the register rolls a tape of laser paper that tells me, and him, and anybody who is interested exactly what was bought, who bought it (Hirshman, customer #11), and when it was bought - date, hours, minutes and seconds!

And all this information is in my hand...and it is in his computer system. And as long as it is not deleted from his computer system, anybody who is interested (no pushing, please) can find out exactly what the Hirshman family has been eating, how much of it we ate, when we ate it, and how much it cost!

V'chol maasecha basefer nichtavim!

I think it would do my blood pressure wonders to take a pleasant stroll to one of those old fashioned not-as-close makolets.

And pay cash!

Expanding my Horizons (and Paying my Bills)

2010-01-07T13:35:00.013+02:00

As book sales are tapering down, expenses mount and exchange rates sink, I need to find more creative ways of selling my advice to anybody who is willing to pay for it.

To that end, over the past few years I have been undergoing intensive training to provide counseling and coaching services to those in need and I am now ready to go "prime time". About a year ago, I earned a diploma in Professional Counseling from Refuah Institute in Jerusalem under Professor Joshua Ritchie, MD and I am fully certified for Marriage Guidance at Y.N.R (Yiutz Nissuin Rabbani - Rabbinical Marriage Counseling) Institute in Jerusalem as well as by the Misrad HaChinuch.

My main area of focus is in the realm of Marriage and Shalom Bayis (couples counseling) and my method is to apply the principles of One Above and Seven Below to real life issues. I touched upon the issues of man/woman relationships from the 1a7b perspective in my book on pages 161-168 (available as part of this post) and Shalom Bayis on pages 246-248 (available HERE).

For all those who live in the Jerusalem area and wish to benefit from my services, you may call me at: 03-7219475 Ext. 274. You can also email me at: 1a7b.yiutz@gmail.com (note that email may compromise identity). If you have Skype, you can also Skype me at: yiutz.1a7b and leave a message.

You need not leave your real name or any personal details besides how and when to contact you.

Hatzlacha Rabba to all.

Yechezkel

Fumbling the Ball in the Red Zone - A Chanuka Parable

2009-12-17T13:10:00.010+02:00

I have never been much of an athlete. I was always chosen in last and, even then, only if I was the one who brought the ball. It took me longer than most of my friends to develop a taste for sports and to understand what's going on. I will be forever grateful to one of my former classmates who was one of the first to explain to me the finer points of American football. This classmate was also the "first string" quarterback for the schoolyard touch football we played at recess.

Her name is Rebecca. (She now lives in Efrat with her husband and six kids. I don't think she plays football any more but she does run marathons.)

From these humble beginnings, my taste for American football matured until I came to respect the sport. Subsequently, I became a diehard Lakewoodist and I am currently a neo-chareidi mussarist pushing ameilus b'Torah. What's more, I have been removed from the American scene for over 12 years. And besides, the team I used to root for (the Natwich Nutcrackers) haven't won a Super Bowl in over twenty years. And despite all that, I still respect the sport. Or maybe, it's because of all that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that any religious Jew should ever waste 3 hours of his life watching a football game. It's not just bittul zman. In recent years, the high quality field level cameras give us close up views of what goes on not only on the field during plays but also revealing glimpses of what goes on on the sidelines between plays. Still and all, there are a few valuable things we can learn from the philosophies of the sport.

For example, I learned to appreciate the precision teamwork that is necessary to execute a successful play. The players of each team are specialists in their roles. Be it the quarterback, the running backs, linemen, receivers, tight ends, linebackers, or safeties. The entire roster is about 45 people but only 11 can participate in any play. For every play, the coaches determine what needs to be done and picks out which players are the specialists for the particular mission of the play. Each player has a distinct assignment and the success of the play depends on how he carries it out. No matter how insignificant a position may seem to be, nothing can be neglected. No matter how talented are the quarterback, the running back or the receiver, a single well placed block or a single missed block can spell the difference between winning or losing. Every player's moves count!

I always thought that a well executed play looks like a perfectly choreographed ballet (I taught Rebecca about ballet!- just kidding!)

Another pearl of wisdom is a remark I heard an analyst say in the name of Jerry Glanville (anybody remember him?) who coached the Houston Oilers during one of their few winning seasons when they barely made the playoffs:

Do you know what NFL stands for? Not For Long!!

I have never forgotten this witticism because it applies to so much more than professional sports.

But I really want to discuss the main object of the game. The object of the game is to conquer the playing field by advancing the team to the goal line. If the team conquers the entire field, they are awarded a touchdown and earn 6 points. And how does a team advance?

By moving the ball.

In other words, the team is where the ball is. And this brings me to my main point. In order to score any points, your team has got to have the ball. Only the team with the ball can score points! And only the team that can score the most points can win the game.

So in American football - as in many other sports - the most important rule for any team is:

Hang on to the ball! Whatever you do, don't lose possession of the ball!

We all know that there is one thing in football that will guaranteee any team, no matter how talented it's players, many tallies in the losing column: turnovers.

A turnover is when the team that controls the ball mishandles it so that they wind up losing the ball and it winds up in the hands of the opposing team. Remember, only the team that is controlling the ball scores points.

Because of this, you will notice something that happens in football. If my team is controlling the ball, I have ten players who will have no trouble advancing to the enemy's goal line un-opposed. That's right, nobody from the other team will stop them. Or will even try to stop them. Unfortunately, the ten players in question will be the ten players who do not happen to be the one holding the ball. For the one fellow who currently has the ball, life is different. The entire opposing team will do everything in their power to stop him. First order of business is to make sure that this one fellow doesn't get the opportuinity to advance the ball.

And, if they can, they are going to try to do something else. They are going to try to cause him to "cough up" the football. To lose control.

To fumble!!

When the player is a klutz and coughs up the ball on his own, we call this a fumble. But when the other team helps expedite the process, we call this stripping the ball or a forced fumble.

Now, even though a vigilant defensive player will always look for an opportunity to force a fumble, the defensive players become all the more vigilant when the controlling team gets near their goal line. When a team is within 20 yards of the opponent's goal line we say they are in the red zone. They are very close to scoring. When this happens, the defending team gets a bit tougher. And they look harder for a chance to force a fumble. Thus the team trying to score has to be ever more watchful about hanging on to the football. Because they must score to win. And the most devastating thing that can happen is if they fumble the ball in the red zone.

Now, what's the significance of all this?

The significance is that this is the story of the Jewish people. Or better yet, this is the history of the Jewish people.

You see, we are playing one big game. A game of football. We must conquer a field. But it is not a field of distance. It is not a field of 100 yards. It is a field of time. It is a field of 6000 years. We must advance through this field of time and reach the goal line. If we don't, we will not win the game.

And, in order to do it. We must maintain control of the ball! The Torah is the ball. And the only way to win is if we are still holding on to it when we reach the goal line. the only way to win the game is:

Hang on to the ball! Whatever you do, don't lose possession of the ball!

The Greeks were great athletes. They knew the rules of football. They knew that as long as we don't cough up the football we will eventually reach the goal line and score. So they tried their hardest to make us "fumble the football". To make us lose control of the "ball".

להשכיחם תורתיך ולהעבירם מחקי רצוניך.

They tried to outlaw Rosh Chodesh - our calendar, Shabbos - our testimony that HKBH created the world, bris milah - our visible sign of identity, family purity - the Waters of Eden and to write on the horn of the ox that "we have no portion in the G-d of Israel". And the line had us as 30 point underdogs.

But we won that game because we were the receiving team and we never gave up possession of the football. Even the Lions can beat the Vikings if they can only keep the ball out of the hands of Brett Favre (no small feat).

But that was just one game. It wasn't the Super Bowl and the season isn't over. The "Greeks" came again and again just under a new coach and wearing a different color jersey each time. No they are not outplaying us but they are all trying for the same tactic - forcing us to fumble the football.

Until recently it wasn't all that difficult to hang on to the football. Because we weren't in the red zone.

But we are now.

And so the "Greeks" are trying harder and harder to make us cough up the ball. And it's getting harder and harder to hang on to it.

Why?

Because just like in American football, we must execute each "play" with precision teamwork. Each person must carry out his assignment flawlessly. Whether it is a spotlight role like passing or carrying the ball, or whether it is a supportive role like throwing blocks. Every person's assignment is essential to successfully completing a play.

But it looks like many players are neglecting their assignments. They think that their job is to get to the goal line. And they say that it is so easy. Nobody seems to be stopping them.

They have forgotten that they are not the player that is carrying the ball.

From the whole "team" of Klal Yisroel barely one out of 11 is still carrying the ball (actually, less). These are the One-Aboveniks, the Im-Bechukosai-Telechuniks who are Ameilim b'Torah. Only they have the ball. And 11 out of 11 of the "opponents" are ganging up on them trying to stop them and trying to strip the ball. And they are trying very hard.

Because we are in the red zone.

And those who are supposed to be blocking for them are not carrying out their assignments.

So when we see people in the chareidi world stumbling and fumbling and losing control of the football it is because, since they are the only ones carrying the ball, all of the forces of the opposing team focus on them as the gemara says in Sukka 52a:

ת"ר ואת הצפוני ארחיק מעליכם זה יצה"ר שצפון ועומד בלבו של אדם והדחתיו אל ארץ ציה ושממה למקום שאין בני אדם מצויין להתגרות בהן את פניו אל הים הקדמוני שנתן עיניו במקדש ראשון והחריבו והרג תלמידי חכמים שבו וסופו אל הים האחרון שנתן עיניו במקדש שני והחריבו והרג תלמידי חכמים שבו ועלה באשו ותעל צחנתו שמניח אומות העולם ומתגרה בשונאיהם של ישראל כי הגדיל לעשות אמר אביי ובתלמידי חכמים יותר מכולם

For those who don't read fine print, this passage is saying that the Yetzer Harah forsakes all of the nations of the world and only starts up with the Jews. Then comes the Amora Abayeh and he adds: And to the Talmidei Chachamim - those who study Torah - he (the Yetzer Harah) incites more than to any other Jews!

And those Seven-Belowniks who think they are reaching the goal line unimpeded do not realize that the opposing forces do not bother them. They are not carrying the ball. They will not score any points. And instead of executing a successful play, they are botching their assignments.

It is those who carry the ball who must reach the goal line in order to win the game and everybody else on the team has to block the opponents and enable the ball carrier to advance.

If they do, they can wear the same Super Bowl ring as the ones who advance the football. If they don't, they will be as famous as Jerry Glanville.

It's All Greek To Me - Purim Repost L'Chvod Chanuka

2009-12-10T15:13:00.004+02:00

The following post is a repost from last March 9th. I originally wrote it in response to the referenced article which was current at that time. Though I titled it and laced it with a Purim motif, it is as much if not more relevant to Chanuka. So I am reposting it now in honor of Chanuka. I changed nothing from the original post except for the closing line in Hebrew.

A freilichin Chanuka to all:

Original Title: Yefes in the Tents of "Shame"

יונים נקבצו עלי אזי בימי חשמנים, ופרצו חומות מגדלי וטמאו כל השמנים

There is an interesting discussion going on over at Emes Ve-Emunah. The discussion revolves around an entity that I had never heard about until I tuned into blogs: the Orthoprax.

If you are not sure what that is, you are not alone. Last I checked there were 76 comments posted to the initial piece many of which are debating the proper usage of the term. So after reading the post and perusing the comments, I for one, am still plenty confused. But the confusion does not start here.

We Jews are so-o-o creative! We always like making up new discriptive terms (see my post about chareidim and wings). Reform, Conservative, Traditional. Those are pretty easy to understand because they are in plain English. But here's a really hard one one: Orthodox.
Where did this term come from?

The Greeks, for Heaven's sake. It came from the GREEKS! (As does the term Hypocrite).

So what does it mean? Well, it's Greek to me.

Our sages were not very fond of the Greeks. The first step of Hellenization was when we translated the Torah into Greek. This is one reason why we fast on the 10th of Teves. The next step is when we refer to our hashkafas in Greek terms. First there is Orthodox. Then there is Heterodox and Conservadox. (These last 2 are just one plain pair-a-dox) and now there is Orthoprax.

But getting back to the term Orthodox, I think I have finally figured out what it means. It means: keeping the Torah like a Greek. How so? Consider the following about an "Orthodox" Jewish female NCAA basketball player at the University of Toledo. This comes from a recent Jerusalem Post article entitled Holy Toledo:

Shafir is not only a leader on the team, but she has become a role model in the Jewish community as the first female Orthodox Jewish athlete in the NCAA Division I competition, the top level of American collegiate athletics.

"One thing that we figured was to get in touch with a rabbi in town to find out what was most important. We then spoke to her uncle and father, who gave us a list of what Shafir would need. This included access to kosher food, a T-shirt under her jersey, not riding in a motorized vehicle on Shabbat and not practicing on Saturdays," says Cullop. "The list was not long, and we knew she would observe the holidays. Luckily the calendar works out in our favor. They were more concerned with school and appreciative of everyone finding solutions."

The Rockets have postponed all of their Saturday afternoon practices to Saturday evenings after sunset. However, Rabbi Chaim Bogonski and Shafir worked out a deal four years ago allowing her to play games on Shabbat. When Shafir was on the Israeli National Junior Team, she was the only Orthodox player. Bogonski ruled that since practice was work and games were fun, it was acceptable to take part in games that fell on Shabbat. This was important, since a majority of the games for Toledo are on Saturday afternoons.

So this is Orthodox? An Israeli girl coming to Chu"l to play basketball in public on Shabbos!? Oh yes, she is acting under complete Daas Torah a la Rabbi Chaim Bogonski. And, certainly, she wears a tee-shirt under her tank top and from the waste down she wears gym shorts just like the Kohen in the Bais HaMikdash! And she is a role model because she is an "Orthodox" Jewish athlete?

This may be Orthodox but it is Greek Orthodox. Antiochus would be proud. But I have my doubts about Mattisyahu (NOT the rapper!!!).

This is kneeling and bowing!

In a book entitled Where Heaven Touches Earth by Rabbi Dovid Rosoff, in the Glossary on page 611 he has the following entry: Chareidi: Orthodox.

I don't think so.

If this is Orthodox, then please do not call me Orthodox. In any case, I don't speak Greek.

What's a better term? Well, Yeshaya didn't speak Greek either. Not to us, at least. And he has a term for the Jews who do the right thing. You know what he calls them?

Chareidim.

He actually coined the term. He certainly must have been referring to somebody. He had a term for Orthoprax, too. But not in Greek. You know what he calls them? He calls them מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה (Yeshaya 29:13) - those who perform mitzvos by rote.

So the Orthoprax are actually nothing new. They've been around for quite some time. Just like the chareidim.

G-d fearing Jews don't need to act like Greeks. And we do not need Greek terms to describe ourselves. We do not need to bring Yefes into the tents of "Shame". And we are forbidden to kneel and bow.

For us, there are many old Biblical or Talmudic terms in Hebrew. Terms like tzaddikim, yesharim, anavim, yereyim, chassidim, kedoshim, perushim, chaveirim, chareidim or...just plain Yehudim. Like Mordechai HaYehudi (or Yehuda HaMaccabee). I'll take any one of them.

The bearers of any of these terms have one thing in common. They will not kneel and they will not bow. They will not send their daughters from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz HaAmim to play basketball on Shabbos in front of men wearing shorts and T-shirts.

כי ארכה לנו השעה ואין קץ לימי הרעה. דחה אדמון בצל צלמון הקם לנו רועים שבעה

100,000 Battered Women

2009-12-10T02:55:00.007+02:00

In the course of reading up on the Yaacov Neeman fiasco for my previous post, I looked primarily at the Jerusalem Post version of events. Interestingly, JPost has two almost identical articles on the subject. The first is dated Dec 8 and is found HERE. But you won't find this version on their site anymore. It's been shelved and replaced by the updated version which is available on the site and right HERE.

The first version is the more interesting one because it is graced by no less than 180 Talkbacks. A great deal of them express a lot of support for an Halachic based society and for Sar Neeman. The more titillating portion reflects the absolute paranoia of the non-Halachic world. A sight for sore eyes, R"L. Jews who are terrified of Judaism!

One interesting exchange really got my goat. It begins at Talkback #133 by one Miriam:

133. Over 100 thousand orthodox women are battered each year in Israel.

Its a big problem, 40 thousand of those are hospitilized. So do we want more halachic laws in Israel?

Miriam - New York (12/08/2009 19:40)

Do you believe that? 100,000 battered Orthodox women!! 40,000 hospitalized!!

Well neither did some other readers, notably numbers 149, 160, and 181. After being challenged by #149, Miriam came back at #155 sticking to her guns:

155. #149 Denial is not a river in Egypt, google it yourself.

Its a huge problem in the Frum community, your just not aware of it. I have no axe to grind, I worked to open refuge center in Israel for Frum battered women.

Miriam - (12/08/2009 23:54)

And the duel is on....

עד שיבא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם

Here comes talkbacker 179 and sets the record straight:

179. Clarification of Miriam #133

For those who may have misunderstood Miriam (#133) and her astronomical numbers, she obviously means the following:
In Israel, over 100,000 Orthodox women a year have marital relations with their husbands and 40,000 of them are hospitalized in the maternity wards.
Life can get rough for an Orthodox woman!

So the awful truth is out. 100,000 Orthodox women per year are "taken advantage of" by their spouses and 40,000 of which wind up bed-ridden at places like Maayanei Hayeshua. And when I see these brutal numbers, my veins surge with rage at the cruelty of this phenomenon and I scream out:

Is that all???