Lipkin's Parallelogram

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:

• Guilt by Association
• Good Questions Deserve Good Answers

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?

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

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

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!

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:

1. 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?
   


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


3. 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

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

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

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?

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"

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

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 by on Scribd

Matanos L'Evyonim - American Style

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!