Originally published 2/28/09, 5:50 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Vayakhel. The topic is tzedakah, specifically how we decide to distribute our funds for worthwhile causes. There are always more needs than available funds, so how do we determine priorities? Where would you put the call to give toward the Mishkan in a world of competing needs?
We invite you to look at an article on this general topic at
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-10.html.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Parsha: Ki Tisa - Life is Complex
Rabbi Hecht and I share a synchronicity on complexity.
It's in the Nishma tagline:
Life is complex, Torah is complex etc.
As we seem to be drifting towards a new Dark Ages, people are seeking the old black-and-white solutions that made magic popular 1,000 years ago and dictators popular about 70 years ago. Perhaps that is why Roshei Yeshiva are now being invested with "rebbe"-like infallibility -an absolute anathema to misnagidic thinking!
Anyhow - in the parsha we see that aside from Levi'im, Yehoshua, and women and children - all 600,000+ adult Israelites were labelled with guilt for the "Molten Calf". And yet the Levite-produced carnage amounted to but 3,000 souls less than 1/60 the of the total- and should therefore be a nullified trivial measure by rabbinic thinking!
Hazal have explained that there was not simply ONE level of guilt but at least 3; viz.:
The Eirev Rav started and instigated the sin. Some Israelites joined along and some merely witnessed idly w/o any Pinchas like protest. Thus the actual culpability for worship was limited to 3,000, but the collective guilt of acquiescence or of condoning was nationwide.
Which leads us to consider that not every guilt or culpability is morally equivalent. To say that since Andy Pettite was not 100% forthcoming at first makes him as big a liar as the Rocket or as McNamee is mis-leading and is ingenuous. There ARE degrees of guilt, it is NOT a black and white continuum. And ther are levels of honesty. While few humans bat 1.000 in the honesty department, not all are compulsive liars either!
That said: culpability is a funny thing! Many "public Jews" have railed that the world was silent about the Holocaust whilst it transpired, yet many - myself included - are silent as a slaughter occurs in Darfur.
A Hong Kong native who owns a Chinese restaurant lamented to me: Jews had a Holocaust . What about the Chinese!? Indeed he is correct. In the aftermath of the Jimmy Doolittle raid "40 seconds over Tokyo" Japanese exacted revenge on 250,000 Chinese over the next few weeks. Nanking was raped! And who in the West cares to comment!? In fact most North Americans buy the Euro-Centric version of WWII beginning at Hitler's invasion of Poland and ignore the Japanese occupation of China almost completely! [not to mention Manchuria etc.]
And even in Europe, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War were surely part of the WWII cluster of the battles of the dictators! The point is while standing idling by is NOT the same level of culpability as committing the dirty deed, nevertheless culpability there is indeed! Woe to all of us for not doing our best to protest
KT
RRW
It's in the Nishma tagline:
Life is complex, Torah is complex etc.
As we seem to be drifting towards a new Dark Ages, people are seeking the old black-and-white solutions that made magic popular 1,000 years ago and dictators popular about 70 years ago. Perhaps that is why Roshei Yeshiva are now being invested with "rebbe"-like infallibility -an absolute anathema to misnagidic thinking!
Anyhow - in the parsha we see that aside from Levi'im, Yehoshua, and women and children - all 600,000+ adult Israelites were labelled with guilt for the "Molten Calf". And yet the Levite-produced carnage amounted to but 3,000 souls less than 1/60 the of the total- and should therefore be a nullified trivial measure by rabbinic thinking!
Hazal have explained that there was not simply ONE level of guilt but at least 3; viz.:
- Those who sinned with witnesses and warning
- Those who sinned with witnesses and NO warning
- Those who sinned without witnesses
The Eirev Rav started and instigated the sin. Some Israelites joined along and some merely witnessed idly w/o any Pinchas like protest. Thus the actual culpability for worship was limited to 3,000, but the collective guilt of acquiescence or of condoning was nationwide.
Which leads us to consider that not every guilt or culpability is morally equivalent. To say that since Andy Pettite was not 100% forthcoming at first makes him as big a liar as the Rocket or as McNamee is mis-leading and is ingenuous. There ARE degrees of guilt, it is NOT a black and white continuum. And ther are levels of honesty. While few humans bat 1.000 in the honesty department, not all are compulsive liars either!
That said: culpability is a funny thing! Many "public Jews" have railed that the world was silent about the Holocaust whilst it transpired, yet many - myself included - are silent as a slaughter occurs in Darfur.
A Hong Kong native who owns a Chinese restaurant lamented to me: Jews had a Holocaust . What about the Chinese!? Indeed he is correct. In the aftermath of the Jimmy Doolittle raid "40 seconds over Tokyo" Japanese exacted revenge on 250,000 Chinese over the next few weeks. Nanking was raped! And who in the West cares to comment!? In fact most North Americans buy the Euro-Centric version of WWII beginning at Hitler's invasion of Poland and ignore the Japanese occupation of China almost completely! [not to mention Manchuria etc.]
And even in Europe, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War were surely part of the WWII cluster of the battles of the dictators! The point is while standing idling by is NOT the same level of culpability as committing the dirty deed, nevertheless culpability there is indeed! Woe to all of us for not doing our best to protest
KT
RRW
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Judaism - Which ISM triumphs?
Originally published 2/23/08, 7:54 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
It seems that every generation has its own set of challenges.
About 100 years ago - Judaism was superseded by many Jews - by Marxism/Communism/Socialism etc. It was THOSE isms that would bring about the Millennia! =- i.e Peace on Earth and all that optimistic stuff.
But it does not end with Socialism. In the Western World, most Jews genuflect to Secular Liberals as uber alles. While others go further and add Feminism or Egalitarianism to supersede Judaism/
Perhaps the most Jewish of isms to challenge Judaism is Zionism. Vesechezena Eineinu bechuv'cha leZion berachamim. Certainly Zionism is a genuinely Jewish ideal. The issue though is, Does Zionism become the be-all and end-all of Judaism superseding all the OTHER aspects?
Now that post-Zionism is upon us, we have even NEWER isms to supersede Judaism. There is of course the Kabbalism of the fringe groups that include Esther/Madonna. But even more indisious is Meshichistism or, applying an old fashioned word - Messianism. Unfortunately , the is not a brand new ism, but rather a recycled one. The idea that a human Messianic savior could supplant or fulfil the entire Torah was posited in the 1st Century CE, probably NOT by the Nazerene himself but by such apostles as Saul/Paul etc., culminating with the Nicene Creed.
But it did NOT end there. There was the Messianism of Bar Kochabe and Shabettai Zvi, to mention a few. Did it end there? Apparently not! There are STILL Jews who are more focused upon the Messiah than upon Judaism.
I would submit that there is only ONE ism to trump Judaism and I call it "Torah-ism." When you stick to the Torah, only THEN can you supersede "Judaism" per se.
KT
RRW
It seems that every generation has its own set of challenges.
About 100 years ago - Judaism was superseded by many Jews - by Marxism/Communism/Socialism etc. It was THOSE isms that would bring about the Millennia! =- i.e Peace on Earth and all that optimistic stuff.
But it does not end with Socialism. In the Western World, most Jews genuflect to Secular Liberals as uber alles. While others go further and add Feminism or Egalitarianism to supersede Judaism/
Perhaps the most Jewish of isms to challenge Judaism is Zionism. Vesechezena Eineinu bechuv'cha leZion berachamim. Certainly Zionism is a genuinely Jewish ideal. The issue though is, Does Zionism become the be-all and end-all of Judaism superseding all the OTHER aspects?
Now that post-Zionism is upon us, we have even NEWER isms to supersede Judaism. There is of course the Kabbalism of the fringe groups that include Esther/Madonna. But even more indisious is Meshichistism or, applying an old fashioned word - Messianism. Unfortunately , the is not a brand new ism, but rather a recycled one. The idea that a human Messianic savior could supplant or fulfil the entire Torah was posited in the 1st Century CE, probably NOT by the Nazerene himself but by such apostles as Saul/Paul etc., culminating with the Nicene Creed.
But it did NOT end there. There was the Messianism of Bar Kochabe and Shabettai Zvi, to mention a few. Did it end there? Apparently not! There are STILL Jews who are more focused upon the Messiah than upon Judaism.
I would submit that there is only ONE ism to trump Judaism and I call it "Torah-ism." When you stick to the Torah, only THEN can you supersede "Judaism" per se.
KT
RRW
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Opening your mouth to put your foot in it
Originally published 2/21/08, 6:17 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Why do people not recognize how to talk to someone with different a prioris, a different perspective? Recognizing a different perception does NOT mean you agree with it. What it does mean is that you can have an effective communication as you express your view. It means that you don't look like an idiot.
This issue emerges again with statements regarding homosexuality made by some religious MKs in Israel. Homosexual behaviour is clearly forbidden. I would add that much of what is permitted in terms of a gay lifestyle also presents halachic problems. For example, I recently read something about two religious men sharing an apartment while maintaining a romantic albeit celibate relationship. The problem with that, though, is that the prohibitions of yichud and of any touching may still apply; there are still halachic problems. That is not my point, though. Notwithstanding the clarity of the prohibition, one still has to know how to express the Torah view to the general populace, especially if the general populace does not share the Torah view and in fact challenges it. Dah mah l'tosheiv l'apikoris, know how to respond to the heretic. This includes stating a Torah posotion in a manner that will not allow the other to mock Torah. This demands that one understand the perspective of the other and not be seen as foolish or worse in the other's eyes.
On a certain level this is most difficult in the case of homosexuality as the Torah position is opposite the view of many in the Western World. We will thus be defined as racist or homophobic by maintaining the view of Torah. But, as such, we must be doubly careful not to add more fuel to the fire. Thus we must be extra careful about what we say and make sure that we do not create further harm to Torah.
When I first heard the recent statements made by religious individuals that the recent earthquakes in Israel were a result of Israel's liberal view of homosexuality, I was most upset. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509263,00.html
I am tired of people playing God. The gemara's call to look into one's behaviour when misfortune falls is a personal call. It tells people to look at themselves to see what they are doing wrong -- it does not mean to look at the other for reinforcement of what you already think the other is doing wrong. If you can't critique yourself, keep quiet. Further on this, see http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/katrina.html.
But then what really upset me, was the response to the statement that was also posted. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509505,00.html. Its not the response per se that bothers me but how the response makes the original statement look so foolish and, as such, thereby makes Torah look foolish. Could the MK have said that it violates Torah without mentioning that it violates nature? Isn't that actually suppose to be the Torah approach, to abide by the Halacha simply because it is the tzivui Hashem, the command of God? Furthermore, if you do want to make a point to another person based on their perspective, at least get the perspective right. I am so tired of people thinking they are defending Torah making Torah look foolish
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Why do people not recognize how to talk to someone with different a prioris, a different perspective? Recognizing a different perception does NOT mean you agree with it. What it does mean is that you can have an effective communication as you express your view. It means that you don't look like an idiot.
This issue emerges again with statements regarding homosexuality made by some religious MKs in Israel. Homosexual behaviour is clearly forbidden. I would add that much of what is permitted in terms of a gay lifestyle also presents halachic problems. For example, I recently read something about two religious men sharing an apartment while maintaining a romantic albeit celibate relationship. The problem with that, though, is that the prohibitions of yichud and of any touching may still apply; there are still halachic problems. That is not my point, though. Notwithstanding the clarity of the prohibition, one still has to know how to express the Torah view to the general populace, especially if the general populace does not share the Torah view and in fact challenges it. Dah mah l'tosheiv l'apikoris, know how to respond to the heretic. This includes stating a Torah posotion in a manner that will not allow the other to mock Torah. This demands that one understand the perspective of the other and not be seen as foolish or worse in the other's eyes.
On a certain level this is most difficult in the case of homosexuality as the Torah position is opposite the view of many in the Western World. We will thus be defined as racist or homophobic by maintaining the view of Torah. But, as such, we must be doubly careful not to add more fuel to the fire. Thus we must be extra careful about what we say and make sure that we do not create further harm to Torah.
When I first heard the recent statements made by religious individuals that the recent earthquakes in Israel were a result of Israel's liberal view of homosexuality, I was most upset. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509263,00.html
I am tired of people playing God. The gemara's call to look into one's behaviour when misfortune falls is a personal call. It tells people to look at themselves to see what they are doing wrong -- it does not mean to look at the other for reinforcement of what you already think the other is doing wrong. If you can't critique yourself, keep quiet. Further on this, see http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/katrina.html.
But then what really upset me, was the response to the statement that was also posted. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509505,00.html. Its not the response per se that bothers me but how the response makes the original statement look so foolish and, as such, thereby makes Torah look foolish. Could the MK have said that it violates Torah without mentioning that it violates nature? Isn't that actually suppose to be the Torah approach, to abide by the Halacha simply because it is the tzivui Hashem, the command of God? Furthermore, if you do want to make a point to another person based on their perspective, at least get the perspective right. I am so tired of people thinking they are defending Torah making Torah look foolish
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Monday, 18 February 2008
Orthodoxy Is More Than Ritual
Originally published 2/18/08, 12:54 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
So many people like to express their tolerance of Orthodox Jews. They will go out of their way to ensure that kosher food is available for them or to ensure that they are able to observe Shabbat -- and on a certain level that has to to appreciated -- but I am always somewhat surprised by where the line is drawn on that tolerance. In ritual matters, or what is often referred to as ritual matters such as Kashrut and Shabbat, tolerance does indeed seem to be the order of the day -- but what about other issues. I find it interesting how people who would never expect an Orthodox Jew to eat non-kosher and, as such, will do everything to respect this aspect of Orthodoxy, will simply expect Orthodox Jews to violate other aspects of Halacha that, for some reason, these people do not define as essential.
Another example seems to have surfaced in the Israel military as presented in
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3508063,00.html. I don't get it. The Israeli military will ensure that Orthodox Jews have kosher food, so why can't they ensure that these soldiers will not have female instructors? Is it because some Orthodox Jews would not insist on an absence of female instructors? Does tolerance only exist with a monolithic vision of others? There are differences within Orthodoxy, doesn't each vision, with their distinctions, deserve tolerance? For these individuals, regardless of the opinion of others within Halacha, have a right to follow their view. Is it because the military is concerned with poskim having more authority than military commanders, the concern that existed at Gush Katif? That is a most complex issue and when entering a communal structure there is a problem of differing views of Halacha circumventing the action and goal of the collective -- but that should only concern us when the actions of the collective are indeed challenged. In this case, what could be the problem with meeting the religious perspective of these individuals and ensure that their company only has male instructors?
In the end, I think that problem is in how people see Orthodoxy. As long as we are keeping kosher or privately observing Shabbat, there is tolerance. But bringing Orthodoxy to the world, voicing opinions that touch upon the general issues and ways of the world, as tolerance seems to be a forgotten value.
RBH
So many people like to express their tolerance of Orthodox Jews. They will go out of their way to ensure that kosher food is available for them or to ensure that they are able to observe Shabbat -- and on a certain level that has to to appreciated -- but I am always somewhat surprised by where the line is drawn on that tolerance. In ritual matters, or what is often referred to as ritual matters such as Kashrut and Shabbat, tolerance does indeed seem to be the order of the day -- but what about other issues. I find it interesting how people who would never expect an Orthodox Jew to eat non-kosher and, as such, will do everything to respect this aspect of Orthodoxy, will simply expect Orthodox Jews to violate other aspects of Halacha that, for some reason, these people do not define as essential.
Another example seems to have surfaced in the Israel military as presented in
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3508063,00.html. I don't get it. The Israeli military will ensure that Orthodox Jews have kosher food, so why can't they ensure that these soldiers will not have female instructors? Is it because some Orthodox Jews would not insist on an absence of female instructors? Does tolerance only exist with a monolithic vision of others? There are differences within Orthodoxy, doesn't each vision, with their distinctions, deserve tolerance? For these individuals, regardless of the opinion of others within Halacha, have a right to follow their view. Is it because the military is concerned with poskim having more authority than military commanders, the concern that existed at Gush Katif? That is a most complex issue and when entering a communal structure there is a problem of differing views of Halacha circumventing the action and goal of the collective -- but that should only concern us when the actions of the collective are indeed challenged. In this case, what could be the problem with meeting the religious perspective of these individuals and ensure that their company only has male instructors?
In the end, I think that problem is in how people see Orthodoxy. As long as we are keeping kosher or privately observing Shabbat, there is tolerance. But bringing Orthodoxy to the world, voicing opinions that touch upon the general issues and ways of the world, as tolerance seems to be a forgotten value.
RBH
Sunday, 17 February 2008
Baseball and Congress: Truth and Loyalty
Originally posted 2/17/08, 4:50 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
We may first wish to ask if the present Congressional investigation of steroids use in baseball is a Jewish issue. I am sure that many will say no. On the other hand any issue that involves an consideration of our values, especially when values are in conflict, must call upon us to investigate the Torah perspective on a matter. Such is the case here -- and as often the case the Torah perspective truly highlights the complexity of human life and our need to render appropriate valued decisions.
Last week, I was listening to the radio as a I drove and heard people voicing their opinion on whther Andy Pettit was right in fingering Roger Clemens on the latter's use of steroids. Many argued that Pettit was absolutely correct in telling the truth. Others argued that Pettit even should have lied to maintain his loyalty to a friend. The ones who felt that the truth was most important basically argued that morality must be maintained and lying was wrong. The ones who felt that Pettit sold out his friend basically responded that even though it may be more moral to tell the truth, you sometimes have to lie for a friend. It was at this point that I truly felt that this was a Torah issue for the Torah argument is not that you must break with morality to lie for a friend but rather that morality itself is often hard to define. Sometimes lying is the moral choice. The complexity of a situation is lost in a non-Torah perspective of the moral universe. In the Torah laws of testimony, lying is not condoned but the restrictions on testimony in various situations are intended to highlight this issue. If a testimony will not accomplish a conviction, it should not be given, is one example.
I am not saying that Pettit was right or wrong. I think it is a complex issue. What I am saying, though, is that it may be worthwhile for us to look at issues in the world to see how the Torah would direct us in those situations -- and what we may find more than anything else is Halacha's sensitivity to the complexity that is life.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
We may first wish to ask if the present Congressional investigation of steroids use in baseball is a Jewish issue. I am sure that many will say no. On the other hand any issue that involves an consideration of our values, especially when values are in conflict, must call upon us to investigate the Torah perspective on a matter. Such is the case here -- and as often the case the Torah perspective truly highlights the complexity of human life and our need to render appropriate valued decisions.
Last week, I was listening to the radio as a I drove and heard people voicing their opinion on whther Andy Pettit was right in fingering Roger Clemens on the latter's use of steroids. Many argued that Pettit was absolutely correct in telling the truth. Others argued that Pettit even should have lied to maintain his loyalty to a friend. The ones who felt that the truth was most important basically argued that morality must be maintained and lying was wrong. The ones who felt that Pettit sold out his friend basically responded that even though it may be more moral to tell the truth, you sometimes have to lie for a friend. It was at this point that I truly felt that this was a Torah issue for the Torah argument is not that you must break with morality to lie for a friend but rather that morality itself is often hard to define. Sometimes lying is the moral choice. The complexity of a situation is lost in a non-Torah perspective of the moral universe. In the Torah laws of testimony, lying is not condoned but the restrictions on testimony in various situations are intended to highlight this issue. If a testimony will not accomplish a conviction, it should not be given, is one example.
I am not saying that Pettit was right or wrong. I think it is a complex issue. What I am saying, though, is that it may be worthwhile for us to look at issues in the world to see how the Torah would direct us in those situations -- and what we may find more than anything else is Halacha's sensitivity to the complexity that is life.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Respecting Other Value Systems
Originally published 2/12/08, 3:57 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. The link no longer works.
The past week was filled with comments in the National Post (a newspaper that serves all of Canada) regarding an incident where an Orthodox rabbi did not shake hands with a female deputy mayor. Columnists in the paper found the rabbi's behaviour to be disrespectful, while many responded to these critiques with the defense that the rabbi meant no disrespect and was simply following his religious principles which should be, at least, understood in light of our concept of freedom of religion.
In following this case, two issues interested me. One was the need for individuals to learn how to relate with differing, and even conflicting, value systems. One can disagree but one still has to know the specifics of another's behaviour and what is its true message. A secular person may still find difficulties with the gender distinctions of Orthodoxy specifically, as in this case, with men not shaking hands with women, but it should still not be interpreted pursuant to the secular person's value constructs. Why a secular person may not shake hands with a person of another gender has nothing to do with why an Orthodox person may not. To live in a society of individuals with differing value systems means to understand the frame of reference of the other and know the message of a specific behaviour pursuant to this frame of reference, not the interpretor's frame of reference.
This leads me to a second issue that drew my attention. I direct you to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/10/barbara-kay-responds-to-her-pro-hasidic-critics.aspx
which is a comment from one of columnists who critiqued the rabbi for not shaking hands. To defend herself she argued that, of course, it would be wrong to be upset by an Orthodox person simply following his/her religion -- but in this case the rabbi was not simply doing this. The columnist quotes a source that states that according to Halacha there is not problem with people of different genders shaking hands. That, in truth, may be a legitimate halachic position but prohibiting this shaking of hands is also a legitimate halachic position. Of course, the columnist is not knowledgeable of differences in Halacha -- but that is also a necessary knowledge for one who wishes to deal with differing value systems. How can one understand Orthodoxy without a knowledge of machloket, disagreement? To critique the rabbi for adopting a specific halachic opinion by stating that it is not a halachic opinion is absurd -- but this columnist does not know this for the columnist does not really understand Orthodoxy. This is a powerful caveat. Even when you think you understand the other, maybe you should still recognize that you do not.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The past week was filled with comments in the National Post (a newspaper that serves all of Canada) regarding an incident where an Orthodox rabbi did not shake hands with a female deputy mayor. Columnists in the paper found the rabbi's behaviour to be disrespectful, while many responded to these critiques with the defense that the rabbi meant no disrespect and was simply following his religious principles which should be, at least, understood in light of our concept of freedom of religion.
In following this case, two issues interested me. One was the need for individuals to learn how to relate with differing, and even conflicting, value systems. One can disagree but one still has to know the specifics of another's behaviour and what is its true message. A secular person may still find difficulties with the gender distinctions of Orthodoxy specifically, as in this case, with men not shaking hands with women, but it should still not be interpreted pursuant to the secular person's value constructs. Why a secular person may not shake hands with a person of another gender has nothing to do with why an Orthodox person may not. To live in a society of individuals with differing value systems means to understand the frame of reference of the other and know the message of a specific behaviour pursuant to this frame of reference, not the interpretor's frame of reference.
This leads me to a second issue that drew my attention. I direct you to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/10/barbara-kay-responds-to-her-pro-hasidic-critics.aspx
which is a comment from one of columnists who critiqued the rabbi for not shaking hands. To defend herself she argued that, of course, it would be wrong to be upset by an Orthodox person simply following his/her religion -- but in this case the rabbi was not simply doing this. The columnist quotes a source that states that according to Halacha there is not problem with people of different genders shaking hands. That, in truth, may be a legitimate halachic position but prohibiting this shaking of hands is also a legitimate halachic position. Of course, the columnist is not knowledgeable of differences in Halacha -- but that is also a necessary knowledge for one who wishes to deal with differing value systems. How can one understand Orthodoxy without a knowledge of machloket, disagreement? To critique the rabbi for adopting a specific halachic opinion by stating that it is not a halachic opinion is absurd -- but this columnist does not know this for the columnist does not really understand Orthodoxy. This is a powerful caveat. Even when you think you understand the other, maybe you should still recognize that you do not.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Sunday, 10 February 2008
Why Have Schools Dropped the Ball re: Cantillation?
Originally published 2/10/08, 3:01 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Here is my response to a provocative post from the "Leining Group"
Soap Box time for Better chinuch:
Here is my response to a provocative post from the "Leining Group"
Soap Box time for Better chinuch:
- Why don't teachers of Humash and Tanach simply insist on reading the words with the trope from day one and teach the trope as part of the language of the Tanach?
- I think Sephardim and Teimanim do this already. FWIW, Moslems would never cite a verse from the Qur'an without its cantillation. It's a shame we don't insist on this in our educational systems
- Also, many older editions of Siddurim and Machazorim USED to have verses from Tanach with their trope. Why was this dropped? Espeically as printing became CHEAPER
- Somewhere along the line, excellence in cantillation and diction has been dropped as priority. Why? And what can we do about it?
On Feb 10, 2008 10:43 AM, myappel <myappel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Shalom Leining Group Members,
KT,
I imagine that I am not alone in thinking that the trope is really an intrinsic part of proper k'riah. There have been numerous discussions on this list regarding its role in directing proper word pronunciation, and phrase parsing. What seems to happen though, is that in the emphasis on proper k'riah and understanding, trope is deemed to be extra, and is often not taught until kids are preparing to become b'nai-mitzvah. Having taught the parasha to a number of b'nai-mitzvah, I can say that the introduction of trope at that point portrays it as a new, additional element to learn besides the actual words. I think it would be much easier if trope were taught earlier,
so children could appreciate that it really is an organic part of k'riah. I have a 6 year old son who is able to read, and has just started his study of Chumash. (He had a Chumash receiving party in school just last week.) I am inclined to start working with him on identifying trope, and showing its role in the understanding of the pesukim. Clearly though, I would approach the teaching differently than I would for a bar-mitzvah age child. My current idea is to show how the Etnachta and the Sof Pasuk, are major pauses, how that affects the meaning, and how the meshartim that lead up to these notes fill in the phrasing. This would be done with the pesukim that are being learnt in school. Any comments on this approach? Does anyone have any experience in working with early grade school-age children in teaching trope? If so, are there any other ideas that you might have about how to approach it?
Thanks,
Michael
RRW
Thursday, 7 February 2008
A Funny thing Happend Today @ Lunch
Originally posted 2/7/08, 11:04 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
While lunching and munching at my food - while on the job as mashgiach - a lady entered our restaurant and asked for the rabbi. She had already tried to get the rabbi of the local shul but at about 2:00PM he was not to be found. Instead she requested of me:
"Do you know the rabbi in Monsey how heals the sick?"
I replied: "I'm afraid I do not. Have you tried calling any of the local rabbis?..."
After a brief chat it turned out that I could not help her either. It seems that her husband is very ill and no one so far has been able to help HIM.
As she exited the door I made one last suggestion: "Have you tried asking help from God directly?"
Who knew -such a novel thought!
"Do you know the rabbi in Monsey how heals the sick?"
I replied: "I'm afraid I do not. Have you tried calling any of the local rabbis?..."
After a brief chat it turned out that I could not help her either. It seems that her husband is very ill and no one so far has been able to help HIM.
As she exited the door I made one last suggestion: "Have you tried asking help from God directly?"
Who knew -such a novel thought!
Good Shabbos,
RRW
What should be the priorities of the Jewish community?
Originally published 2/7/08, 6:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. Neither of the links work.
An interesting exchange recently took place in the pages of the National Post (Canada) on essentially what should be the priorities of a Jewish community especially within the context of the greater community
in which we live and, in fact, within the world community. Please see:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/06/laura-rosen-cohen-the-problem-at-the-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx
and
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/07/sylvain-abitbol-and-rabbi-reuven-p-bulka-what-s-right-with-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx
Within the views of both presentations are the obvious political overtones that revolve around what is actually being done -- "we are doing that!" "No, you are not!" -- but there is the greater issue of the balance of being a self-interest group serving the group, and being the bastion of Jewish ethics attempting to present Jewish values to the broader society.
Was a regular newspaper the appropriate forum for this presentation?
What's your take?
An interesting exchange recently took place in the pages of the National Post (Canada) on essentially what should be the priorities of a Jewish community especially within the context of the greater community
in which we live and, in fact, within the world community. Please see:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/06/laura-rosen-cohen-the-problem-at-the-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx
and
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/02/07/sylvain-abitbol-and-rabbi-reuven-p-bulka-what-s-right-with-canadian-jewish-congress.aspx
Within the views of both presentations are the obvious political overtones that revolve around what is actually being done -- "we are doing that!" "No, you are not!" -- but there is the greater issue of the balance of being a self-interest group serving the group, and being the bastion of Jewish ethics attempting to present Jewish values to the broader society.
Was a regular newspaper the appropriate forum for this presentation?
What's your take?
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Burkas and Tznios: The Challenge to Torah Thought
Originally published 2/6/08, 12:07 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
We would like to draw your attention some recent posts on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart, which discuss a group of frum women who have begun dressing in a manner that is similar to the Moslem Burka.
The Torah concept of the shvil hazahav, the Golden Mean, does not just present a value in some quantitatively middle approach to traits and values. If one views two poles of any one trait, one is often perceived to be better than the other. The result for many is a difficulty with having to incorporate any value of the extreme that is deemed to be negative. This is an example of such a problem for it we perceive value in a lack of sexuality, than any degree of sexuality would be problematic. The Golden Mean would then just be defined as what is permissible and so you would strive for the extreme to meet what is perceived to be the goal. Another example would be found in the female leader of ths group's desire to not speak. Define the world in two extremes, declare one holy and then you will move to the holy extreme.
The principle of the Golden Mean as the ideal behaviour and value within Torah thought actually challenges this perception. The Mean is not some quantitative statement of the middle but the definition of a new qualitative middle understanding of the value and trait. It demands sophistication in thought to define this value and trait and recognize a whole new way of understanding the trait, value and life. Tzniut is not the absence of any sexuality but a new Torah definition of proper sexuality in the same way that it defines proper Torah expression of self. That is why I translate tzniut as gracefulness. The sadness of these women's behaviour is what it states about how far we are from Torah thought and the true sophisticated understanding of God's wisdom. Their behaviour is sad for them but it is sad for all of us for it shows how weak our understanding of the sophistication and genius of Torah is in our generation.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
We would like to draw your attention some recent posts on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart, which discuss a group of frum women who have begun dressing in a manner that is similar to the Moslem Burka.
The Torah concept of the shvil hazahav, the Golden Mean, does not just present a value in some quantitatively middle approach to traits and values. If one views two poles of any one trait, one is often perceived to be better than the other. The result for many is a difficulty with having to incorporate any value of the extreme that is deemed to be negative. This is an example of such a problem for it we perceive value in a lack of sexuality, than any degree of sexuality would be problematic. The Golden Mean would then just be defined as what is permissible and so you would strive for the extreme to meet what is perceived to be the goal. Another example would be found in the female leader of ths group's desire to not speak. Define the world in two extremes, declare one holy and then you will move to the holy extreme.
The principle of the Golden Mean as the ideal behaviour and value within Torah thought actually challenges this perception. The Mean is not some quantitative statement of the middle but the definition of a new qualitative middle understanding of the value and trait. It demands sophistication in thought to define this value and trait and recognize a whole new way of understanding the trait, value and life. Tzniut is not the absence of any sexuality but a new Torah definition of proper sexuality in the same way that it defines proper Torah expression of self. That is why I translate tzniut as gracefulness. The sadness of these women's behaviour is what it states about how far we are from Torah thought and the true sophisticated understanding of God's wisdom. Their behaviour is sad for them but it is sad for all of us for it shows how weak our understanding of the sophistication and genius of Torah is in our generation.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishna Brura
Originally published 2/2/08, 10:12 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Dear Readers,
I have just completed reading the Biography of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Apparently Rabbiner Hirsch bemoaned the fact that the Shulchan Aruch[1] was in 4 parts and thereby people were not being holistic in that they neglected vast tracts of Hoshen Mishpat etc, in their behavior.
While the Mishna Brura pointedly commented on ONLY Orach Haim because he felt that this was the primary legal text for Jewish People [see hakdamah to the Mishna Brura.] [2]
There you have it in a nutshell. If you ever meet Jews who are meticulously observant in their observance of Davening, Shabbos and Pesach, - whilst also being boorish, dishonest, and downright sleazy in business - they are probably following the Mishna Brura.OTOH, if you meet well-rounded people who observe only the basics of Halachah, but are essentially honest, straightforward [glatt yosher] - then they probably pasken like Rabbiner Hirsch!
Dear Readers,
I have just completed reading the Biography of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Apparently Rabbiner Hirsch bemoaned the fact that the Shulchan Aruch[1] was in 4 parts and thereby people were not being holistic in that they neglected vast tracts of Hoshen Mishpat etc, in their behavior.
While the Mishna Brura pointedly commented on ONLY Orach Haim because he felt that this was the primary legal text for Jewish People [see hakdamah to the Mishna Brura.] [2]
There you have it in a nutshell. If you ever meet Jews who are meticulously observant in their observance of Davening, Shabbos and Pesach, - whilst also being boorish, dishonest, and downright sleazy in business - they are probably following the Mishna Brura.OTOH, if you meet well-rounded people who observe only the basics of Halachah, but are essentially honest, straightforward [glatt yosher] - then they probably pasken like Rabbiner Hirsch!
Notes:
[1] Although it is popular to attribute this arrangement to the Shulchan Aruch - It was actually the Tur who subdivided his work in 4 [actually 4 majors with Orach Haim sub-divided into 3] and into the the simanin later used by R. Y. Karo et. al.[2] Ironically, the MB himself was a Ba'al Musar and would probably "rue the day" that Jews went off in this mis-direction!
Friday, 1 February 2008
Mishpatim: Understanding Torah
Originally published 2/1/08, 1:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Mishpatim. The topic is mitzvot we understand and mitzvot we don't understand. Most significantly, what we understand may actually change over time. Certain laws shich were presented as understandable in the past are now deemed not understandable. And other laws which were described as beyond human comprehension in the past and now seen as making sense. What does this indicate about the human interaction with Torah? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5755-13.htm.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Mishpatim. The topic is mitzvot we understand and mitzvot we don't understand. Most significantly, what we understand may actually change over time. Certain laws shich were presented as understandable in the past are now deemed not understandable. And other laws which were described as beyond human comprehension in the past and now seen as making sense. What does this indicate about the human interaction with Torah? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5755-13.htm.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Mardi Gras - Kosher or not Kosher?
Originally posted 1/30/08, 10: 25 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
I recently chatted with an acquaintance who told me he was headed for New Orleans. Knowing full-well that the major religious event in the USA this Sunday [02/03/08] was the forthcoming Super Bowl XLII - I was curious as to why he would head to NEW ORLEANS and not to ARIZONA!
My curiosity was soon satisfied when my compadre said that he was going to New Orleans to celebrate Mardi Gras and that in addition he he has been doing so for the past 10+ years. We digressed to discuss the impact of Katrina etc., but I was really curious as to how an Orthodox Jew - albeit a very Modern Orthodox Jew - would find it in his busy schedule to celebrate [inebriate?] Mardi Gras as an annual Chag.
Bishlama, if he went just ONCE, I could rationalize his action, and chalk it up to intellectual curiosity. But once he has been there and done that and continues to go for the next decade, is this not a true annual ritual?
Funny, methinks that I protest a bit too much but am I the ONLY Orthodox Jew in North America who suspects his fellows of engage in borderline, or even outright, Avodah Zara? [Oh yeah! So go ahead and mention my longstanding worship of the NY Yankees or of my intense loyalty and devotion to the Bobby Orr era Boston Bruins!] All kidding aside I was not close enough to this fellow to give him any kind of hochacha [and being a Mets fan he would not have listened to me anyway] but I really wonder where are our priorities! At least the Arizona Super Bowl is a secular Avodah Zara that probably could be justified
I recently chatted with an acquaintance who told me he was headed for New Orleans. Knowing full-well that the major religious event in the USA this Sunday [02/03/08] was the forthcoming Super Bowl XLII - I was curious as to why he would head to NEW ORLEANS and not to ARIZONA!
My curiosity was soon satisfied when my compadre said that he was going to New Orleans to celebrate Mardi Gras and that in addition he he has been doing so for the past 10+ years. We digressed to discuss the impact of Katrina etc., but I was really curious as to how an Orthodox Jew - albeit a very Modern Orthodox Jew - would find it in his busy schedule to celebrate [inebriate?] Mardi Gras as an annual Chag.
Bishlama, if he went just ONCE, I could rationalize his action, and chalk it up to intellectual curiosity. But once he has been there and done that and continues to go for the next decade, is this not a true annual ritual?
Funny, methinks that I protest a bit too much but am I the ONLY Orthodox Jew in North America who suspects his fellows of engage in borderline, or even outright, Avodah Zara? [Oh yeah! So go ahead and mention my longstanding worship of the NY Yankees or of my intense loyalty and devotion to the Bobby Orr era Boston Bruins!] All kidding aside I was not close enough to this fellow to give him any kind of hochacha [and being a Mets fan he would not have listened to me anyway] but I really wonder where are our priorities! At least the Arizona Super Bowl is a secular Avodah Zara that probably could be justified
KT,
RRW
Monday, 28 January 2008
The Shaitl Controversy in Brooklyn
Originally published 1/28/08, 10:24 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
There would seem to be two issues involved in the shaitl controversy and part of the problem is that they are becoming intertwined thus confusing both.
One is the substantive issue itself. A request was made to remove certain pictures and this request was denied. The result was a call to boycott the store. One has to wonder what really is going on, as it would seem to be a poor business decision by the the owner of the store to alienate members of a potential market. I thus make any comments with a recognition that I really don't know what happened and it all seems so strange to me. I am though bothered because the substantive halachic issue has not been approached in what I would deem to be a proper fashion. There is a perception, by certain individuals, that these pictures should be removed. I perhaps disagree. There is, though, a proper way of approaching a halachic disagreement -- by investigating the substantive issue. What is the argument for removal and what is the argument for not removing? On what issue do we disagree? Of interest to me, within this halachic investigation, is not why I think these pictures should not be a problem, but, rather, the argument as to why they are a problem. As that stage I may still disagree but then there is a way to disagree -- as an argument in halacha leading to definitions of important concepts within Torah. From what I have read, there is no attempt to truly investigate this with halachic determinism. It may be that one finds the whole definiton of tznius and pritzus that is being applied here, by those requesting the pictures removed, to be faulty -- I have written on the subject and also find difficulty with many of the modern understandings of tzniut -- but there is a way of approaching it as a halachic issue leading to a discussion that furthers our understanding of Torah. It is the substantive issue that should be, at least, our first concern. What is the debate within Torah? Why the request? Why the refusal? Why the boycott? What are the issues under debate?
Then there is the second issue which is the rhetoric around the debate. Torah is lost as the issue comes down to the question of daat Torah and authority thereby hiding Torah wisdom. As I have written in regard to the Slifkin affair, Rav Moshe Feinstein in his hakdama to Iggrot Moshe says that one should respond to his ideas not his authority. Of course the reason for any action, in this case, is not presented and the defence becomes the argument of authority. What we lose is Torah. This is not to say that there is no argument of kavod HaTorah and the question of how he owner of the store should respond to a leading Rosh Yeshiva is not a further issues. But that also has to be treated as another issue in Torah demanding Torah study and investigation. Those defending the boycott in the extreme almost feel that even giving an argument for the request to remove is demeaning the kavod HaTorah that goes with accepting the authority. And those attacking the request in the extreme belittle the whole enterprise as another example of the dumbing down of the masses. And the problem is that the actual substantive issue is lost in the rhetoric and we have no idea of what really happened and the Torah arguments -- with which one may still disagree -- that led to the request for removal. And we are left with the arguments that emerged from the subsequent rhetoric which only lessens Torah knowledge.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
There would seem to be two issues involved in the shaitl controversy and part of the problem is that they are becoming intertwined thus confusing both.
One is the substantive issue itself. A request was made to remove certain pictures and this request was denied. The result was a call to boycott the store. One has to wonder what really is going on, as it would seem to be a poor business decision by the the owner of the store to alienate members of a potential market. I thus make any comments with a recognition that I really don't know what happened and it all seems so strange to me. I am though bothered because the substantive halachic issue has not been approached in what I would deem to be a proper fashion. There is a perception, by certain individuals, that these pictures should be removed. I perhaps disagree. There is, though, a proper way of approaching a halachic disagreement -- by investigating the substantive issue. What is the argument for removal and what is the argument for not removing? On what issue do we disagree? Of interest to me, within this halachic investigation, is not why I think these pictures should not be a problem, but, rather, the argument as to why they are a problem. As that stage I may still disagree but then there is a way to disagree -- as an argument in halacha leading to definitions of important concepts within Torah. From what I have read, there is no attempt to truly investigate this with halachic determinism. It may be that one finds the whole definiton of tznius and pritzus that is being applied here, by those requesting the pictures removed, to be faulty -- I have written on the subject and also find difficulty with many of the modern understandings of tzniut -- but there is a way of approaching it as a halachic issue leading to a discussion that furthers our understanding of Torah. It is the substantive issue that should be, at least, our first concern. What is the debate within Torah? Why the request? Why the refusal? Why the boycott? What are the issues under debate?
Then there is the second issue which is the rhetoric around the debate. Torah is lost as the issue comes down to the question of daat Torah and authority thereby hiding Torah wisdom. As I have written in regard to the Slifkin affair, Rav Moshe Feinstein in his hakdama to Iggrot Moshe says that one should respond to his ideas not his authority. Of course the reason for any action, in this case, is not presented and the defence becomes the argument of authority. What we lose is Torah. This is not to say that there is no argument of kavod HaTorah and the question of how he owner of the store should respond to a leading Rosh Yeshiva is not a further issues. But that also has to be treated as another issue in Torah demanding Torah study and investigation. Those defending the boycott in the extreme almost feel that even giving an argument for the request to remove is demeaning the kavod HaTorah that goes with accepting the authority. And those attacking the request in the extreme belittle the whole enterprise as another example of the dumbing down of the masses. And the problem is that the actual substantive issue is lost in the rhetoric and we have no idea of what really happened and the Torah arguments -- with which one may still disagree -- that led to the request for removal. And we are left with the arguments that emerged from the subsequent rhetoric which only lessens Torah knowledge.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Friday, 25 January 2008
Rambam: Neither a Literalist Nor a Mocker Be
Originally published 1/25/08, 3:09 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Dear Readers:
"Yediah" quotes the Rambam re: aggedeta. Yet, this same principle may be applied in all kinds of situations - Namely that at times being naively literal makes the Torah read as silly and similarly being a mocker/scoffer and taking the Torah to be also silly albeit by means of rejection also demonstrates the lack of wisdom.
Only the wise realize that the Aggedita [and other Torah passages] are neither meant to be overly literal nor downright absurd, but are actually communicating profound truths that require reading between the lines.
Some Fundamentalists [mostly on the right but not necessarily so] are K'sillim- fools. Some cynics [mostly on the left but not always] are heretics [kof'rim] masquerading as morally superior somehow.
While those who are mattunim badin - who patiently judge the requisite passages through the lens of intelligent analysis w/o naivite and also without cynicsm will arrive at the underlying truth.
Read More:
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Dear Readers:
"Yediah" quotes the Rambam re: aggedeta. Yet, this same principle may be applied in all kinds of situations - Namely that at times being naively literal makes the Torah read as silly and similarly being a mocker/scoffer and taking the Torah to be also silly albeit by means of rejection also demonstrates the lack of wisdom.
Only the wise realize that the Aggedita [and other Torah passages] are neither meant to be overly literal nor downright absurd, but are actually communicating profound truths that require reading between the lines.
Some Fundamentalists [mostly on the right but not necessarily so] are K'sillim- fools. Some cynics [mostly on the left but not always] are heretics [kof'rim] masquerading as morally superior somehow.
While those who are mattunim badin - who patiently judge the requisite passages through the lens of intelligent analysis w/o naivite and also without cynicsm will arrive at the underlying truth.
Read More:
Having introduced the literalist groups, the fundamentalists who shame the Torah with their ignorance and the mockers who jump to conclusions and accuse the rabbis of being ignoramuses,
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/01/rambam-on-aggadeta -correct-approach.html
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Yitro: Emunah
Originally posted 1/25/08, 10:52 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Yitro. Topic is emunah, which is generally translated as faith or trust. The question of how to translate the word actually reflects an issue involved in understanding the word. Is emunah something we control or is it a natural response of one's being? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-17.htm.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
This week's parsha is Yitro. Topic is emunah, which is generally translated as faith or trust. The question of how to translate the word actually reflects an issue involved in understanding the word. Is emunah something we control or is it a natural response of one's being? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-17.htm.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Kol B'Ishah and Halachic Methodology
Originally published 1/23/08, 10:19 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the Avodah List
From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
-----
From the Avodah List
From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
-----
On Aishdas Avodah, it was said, "that the halacha of 'tzarichl'hisracheik min hanashim meod meod' is based on a totally different societal basis, one where men and women by default were entirely separate, and any contact between the sexes was dangerous. Nowadays,when society is in any case so mixed, I don't think the halacha expects me (or wants me) to be anti-social and davka avoid sitting at a table where a girl is sitting."
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin comes to this exact conclusion in his Equality Lost (Urim: 1999), in chapter nine, "Hirhur and Community Norms". He asks the question, "Is there halachic justification for the relatively open interaction between men and women in much of today's Orthodoxy, and if so, what is it?"
Rabbi Henkin first examines Ketuvot 17a and Berachot 20a, in which two rabbis justify social intercourse with women on the grounds that they personally on are such levels that this poses no problem of tzniut or hirhur for themselves.
Sefer haChinuch 188 says no one today may take such liberties with himself.
But Rabbi Hai Gaon in Rabbenu Yonah to Berachot 25a, Sefer Mitzvot Katan 30, and the Ritva to the end of Kiddushin, all say that if a man knows that he himself is on this level, he can permit for himself the same sorts of acts that the rabbis in the Gemara did.
But this only permits openness for exceptional individuals; what of societal openness? The Maharshal in his Yam Shel Shlomo to Kiddushin, 4:25, says that if an individual knows that he can overcome his impulses, he may speak to an ervah and such; he also quotes the Ritva
in full. But he adds, "The whole world relies on this in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women". Rabbi Henkin notes that this is in contrast to Ritva, he spoke only of exceptional individuals; Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's chiddush is that "When an entire community is accustomed to mingling with and speaking to women, on the other hand, their familiarity may be relied on to forestall sinful thoughts".
Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's source is Tosafot to Kiddushin 82a. R. Acha bar Ada explained his special liberty saying "hakol leshem shamayim", but Tosafot there say "On [hakol leshem shamayim] we rely nowadays [in] that we make use of the services of women". Rabbi Henkin says, "The Tosafot employ this principle to justify widespread practicess. This is precisely the equation employed by Maharshal".
Rabbi Henkin says, "It can be said that the "whole world" of modern Orthodoxy relies implicitly on this Maharshal in using the services of and speaking to and looking at women".
Rabbi Henkin then notes two additional authorities who follow this approach:
1) The Maharshal's student, Rabbi Mordechai Yafeh, in the Levush haTechelet vehaChur (Orach Chayim), no. 36. There, as opposed to Sefer Chassidim 393, he permits saying "shehasimcha beme'ono" at a sheva berachot even when there is mixed seating.
2) Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epstein in the Aruch haShulchan (Orach Chayim 75:7) permits saying Shema in the presence of a woman with uncovered hair, for although she is forbidden to do thus, and although she is technically ervah in this, this has become normal, and men are inured
to it, and he may say Shema in her presence. (Rabbi Henkin notes and vehementally opposes the common misinterpretation, that the AH is permitting women to go without a hair covering - rather, the AH is saying that bedieved, men may say Shema in her presence, but she is still forbidden to dress thusly.)
Rabbi Henkin adds a caveat: "[T]he above applies only to mingling of men and women that is innocent in and of itself. No degree of frequency and familiarity can legitimize what is intrinsically or intentionally sexually stimulating. Examples are immodest or provocative dress, erotic performances and entertainment, and other pitfalls too numerous to be listed".
A second caveat: "[T]here is no halachic imperative to introduce mingling of the sexes where it does not already exist. What we have said here is a justification of community practices, not an agenda. It is much easier to legitimize existing practices than to justify new ones. To do the latter, we would have to take into account the approaches of far more acharonim than just the Yam Shel Shelomoh, the Levush, and the Aruch haShulchan". Rabbi Henkin had indeed previously said, "We have seen then, that there exists a trend - not a dominant trend, but a trend - within halachic thought that in interaction between the sexes that might ordinarily lead to hirhur, frequency and familiarity of contact can be a mitigating factor, and that a community can legitimately rely on this 'in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women', to use the words of the Maharshal".
I am no authority in this, at all. But it occurs to me that when, in Pirkei Avot 1:5, we are told to not have too much sicha with women, many of the commentators say that this is speaking of davka inane or immodest conversation, but not meaningful conversation. At the very least, they say this of the stricture against too much sicha with one's own wife, and since this Mishna speaks of one's own wife and a
stam women as equals, and one's fellow's wife as kal vachomer, then any heterim on one's wife ought to apply to a stam woman, and even to one's fellow's wife (because of dayyo). Thus, it should seem that based on this, if one is sure to limit his conversation to meaningful matters, then social intercourse between the sexes is less problematic. In particular, Rav Hirsch in his perush to Avot makes a large point of the fact that sicha is davka inane conversation. And he
never limits this to only one's wife; one can only assume that Rav Hirsch applies this to the entire Mishna. It is thus interesting that Rabbi Henkin in a footnote says, "Mixing of the sexes at weddings, social gatherings, and even Torah lectures was also characteristic of the strictly Orthodox Germanic-Dutch communities".
As an aside, Rav Hirsch to Avot 3:4 says that divrei Torah doesn't mean davka Torah per se, but rather anything (ANYTHING, even something totally secular) that contributes to a Torah-type lifestyle of goodness and modesty and honesty, etc. The parallel to Torah im Derech Eretz is obvious: just as Rav Hirsch makes a large point of stressing that secular life and matters and learning are elevated to Torah when they infused with and directed based on Torah, so too he says that secular conversations become Torah when they are regarding a life that is conducted along Torah lines. In other words: secular conversations regarding a Torah im Derech Eretz lifestyle, these conversations are themselves divrei Torah.
Mikha'el Makovi
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
A Different Reason for a Jewish Israel
Originally posted 1/23/08, 3:33 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, presents another reason why some may be in favour of a Jewish state -- and its not because it is Jewish.
For more on this, please see Rabbi Hecht's recent article on the subject in the Jewish Tribune (of Toronto). The url for this week's edition of the paper is:
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt240108.pdf
The article is on page 4.
Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, presents another reason why some may be in favour of a Jewish state -- and its not because it is Jewish.
For more on this, please see Rabbi Hecht's recent article on the subject in the Jewish Tribune (of Toronto). The url for this week's edition of the paper is:
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt240108.pdf
The article is on page 4.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
The Reunion Question
Originally published 1/22/08, 1:40 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The Yeshiva of Flatbush sent out an e-mail that informed gay former graduates that their partners are not invited to the class reunion to be held in December 2007. Aside from graduates themselves, according to my understanding, spouses or fiances of graduates are also invited to yeshiva reunions but not others such a friends. The Yeshiva was simply making the point that it does not consider gay partners to be in the same category as spouses or fiances, and thus are not not in the category of those invited
From the point of view of political correctness, this is not in line with what many would think is expected. The Yeshiva, though, is an Orthodox institution and was simply acting within the guidelines of Orthodoxy. You might still expect those who challenge Orthodoxy to voice a complaint with Orthodox standards in the same way you have non-Orthodox feminists critique the separation of the sexes in the Orthodox synagogue - but you would expect most to understand that this reflects the view of Orthodoxy and to be expected by an Orthodox institution. That is why what most surprises me about the whole matter is how many graduates of this Yeshiva are joining in the criticism of the Yeshiva's stand. Whether a specific graduate is Orthodox or not, would you not expect such a person to recognize that this is the Yeshiva being true to its Orthodox roots?
You would expect a Yeshiva to have a reception with only kosher food. You would expect a Yeshiva to ask women who attend one of their functions to dress in a manner consistent with Halachic standards. All this Yeshiva did was ask individuals to respect was Yeshiva's values. You may disagree with these values but you can't challenge the Yeshiva for being what it is. Yet, strangely, so many of the graduates are doing just this. It may be a problem with an Orthodox institution attempting to reach out to the entire community as simply a Jewish place. It's time to recognize that there are major points of friction within the broad Jewish world. Many Reform leaders are in favour of same sex marriages, for example. In stating that I am against same sex marriages. I have to make the point that I don't stand for some generic Jewishness but stand for Orthodoxy. And, similarly, Yeshiva of Flatbush is Orthodox -- it should be respected as such.
The Yeshiva of Flatbush sent out an e-mail that informed gay former graduates that their partners are not invited to the class reunion to be held in December 2007. Aside from graduates themselves, according to my understanding, spouses or fiances of graduates are also invited to yeshiva reunions but not others such a friends. The Yeshiva was simply making the point that it does not consider gay partners to be in the same category as spouses or fiances, and thus are not not in the category of those invited
From the point of view of political correctness, this is not in line with what many would think is expected. The Yeshiva, though, is an Orthodox institution and was simply acting within the guidelines of Orthodoxy. You might still expect those who challenge Orthodoxy to voice a complaint with Orthodox standards in the same way you have non-Orthodox feminists critique the separation of the sexes in the Orthodox synagogue - but you would expect most to understand that this reflects the view of Orthodoxy and to be expected by an Orthodox institution. That is why what most surprises me about the whole matter is how many graduates of this Yeshiva are joining in the criticism of the Yeshiva's stand. Whether a specific graduate is Orthodox or not, would you not expect such a person to recognize that this is the Yeshiva being true to its Orthodox roots?
You would expect a Yeshiva to have a reception with only kosher food. You would expect a Yeshiva to ask women who attend one of their functions to dress in a manner consistent with Halachic standards. All this Yeshiva did was ask individuals to respect was Yeshiva's values. You may disagree with these values but you can't challenge the Yeshiva for being what it is. Yet, strangely, so many of the graduates are doing just this. It may be a problem with an Orthodox institution attempting to reach out to the entire community as simply a Jewish place. It's time to recognize that there are major points of friction within the broad Jewish world. Many Reform leaders are in favour of same sex marriages, for example. In stating that I am against same sex marriages. I have to make the point that I don't stand for some generic Jewishness but stand for Orthodoxy. And, similarly, Yeshiva of Flatbush is Orthodox -- it should be respected as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)