Attacking ad hominem Attacks

Originally posted 9/7/07, 4:30 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

"I cannot STAND rabbi X. He always uses Ad Hominem atacks. How can I take him seriously!?

Dear Readers,

I hope you sense the irony and self-contradictory nature of the previous statement. Regardless of your reaction [or perhaps lack thereof!] Rabbi Hecht and I have both agreed to eschew Ad Hominem attacks. We feel this policy serves this blog better.

Why?

1. We avoid personalizing attacks in order to focus upon the issue at hand
2. Furthermore, many of us are potentially guilty of the behavior in question
3. Finally, as Bruria has taught us: "Learn to HATE the sin and to LOVE the sinner."

Illustrations:

I had a rebbe in yeshiva who would attack many of the Modern professors at Yeshiva University. His attacks were sharp, entertaining, and informative. The targets seemed clear to the entire class. Nevertheless - in order to remove any doubt about his intentions - I confronted my rebbe privately after Shiur.

RRW: So what is it with Professor X? Is he a kosher Jew or what?
My Rebbe [MR]: Well he keeps Shabbes, puts on Tefilin keeps Kosher, etc.

After some back and forth, I realized that MR would attack this professor all day long in his Shi'ur but not mean to personally assail the man. Later on, I would discover that perhaps he meant not to attack the professor per se, just his teachings. That he really did like the guy, but was eschewing his methodology alone!

Fast Forward Many years Later

I was reading Artrscroll's biography of R. Baruch Ber Lebowitz. [FWIW, he was acquainted with MR above]. In this book,  R. Baruch Ber is described as having lashed out at many secularists and Maskillim whom he felt were damaging Judaism during his era. Nevertheless, he refrained from naming names. Why? He was attacking their behavior not their persona.

Rav Schwab ZTL reputedly attacked a certain behavior. When confronted by a congregant re: the intended target of his article, he coyly responded: "If the shoe fits -wear it." Rav Schwab was out to make a point about something he opposed. He did not mean it to get personal, and certainly not personal in the PUBLIC domain.

As a personal Policy I have avoided politics from the pulpit. Why? I feel that it dilutes my position of spiritual leader to get involved with politics. I did make an exception when an obvious anti-Semite ran for City Council and I recommended that he be opposed for that very specific reason. As I see it [AISI] making only 1 exception in 16 year enhanced my "moral authority."

Similarly, when the shenanigans of a recent President of the USA who engaged in questionable moral conduct became all the rage, I described in very general terms what was wrong and why it should be condemned. I named no names and just referred to a political leader who was involved in misbehavior with an intern . Although it was quite obvious to whom I was referring, I avoided naming names.

I feel that personalizing the attack by naming names weakens the message. Frankly, I am also not sure if the aforementioned politician behaved significantly worse than many of his colleagues. I instead attacked his overall lack of morality, but did not name him. Furthermore - other than this misbehavior - I really had no personal animus for the guy, and there were probably other politicians that I liked even better who may have even done worse. So why start name calling?!

On the other hand, I cannot condone the behavior. To my mind, it was clearly reprehensible and called for a statement. I framed it more as a teaching rather than preaching, through pointing out a topical moral lesson in that week's Parsha. By presenting the Torah point of view first, and then following up with a tangential reference to the behavior, I feel that I got my point across without making it into a personal attack. Personal attacks carry with them an animus that I feel undermines the message.

Another Illustration:

Some prominent members of my former congregation were suspicious of a prospective convert. Without confronting any individual I taught a class on the Aggadita concerning Hillel and the three prospective Roman converts. I'm not sure if all of my targeted audience made the connection, nevertheless I felt I had disabused many of some highly erroneous notions about potential Geirei Tzedek. Had I resorted to personal attacks, I would have triggered a certain lose-lose situation.

BEH, I will follow up with some illustrations of Ad Hominem attacks that I consider  misguided and counterproductive!


Shana Tova!
RRW

Parsha: Ki Tisa, "Rashi on Ki Shicheit Amcha"

Originally published 2/17/11, 6:56 pm.
A liberal friend of mine would like to advance a correspondingly liberal conversion policy that is contrary to GPS and other more restrictive policies.

What does Rashi say about such kind-heartedness?

Ki Tisa 22:7 D"H "Ki. Shicheit Amcha"

Hashem told Moshe, "You went ahead and converted them without consulting ME, and said 'good that the converts should embrace the Sh'china' those are the ones who caused this corruption."

I'm sure that, nevertheless, Hashem does embrace Geirim. However, the context here is that Moshe accepted a mass of Geirim who were motivated by the Wonders of the Exodus and not by a solid yearning to embrace Hashem and the Jewish People - in stark contrast to Ruth! This "Erev Rav" was composed of "front-runners", not sincere proselytes.

The Road to 'H..L' is paved with Good Intentions. Moshe's Chessed lacked the necessary restriction, and his liberalism introduced a corrupting influence, that would eventually serve as an internal fifth column.

The history of the events here is not essential. What is essential is Hazal's attitude of warning us of the danger of being inclusive without weighing the potential negative consequences.

Of course, HOW restrictive we should be is a matter for discussion. It is only natural to react to a failed policy in either direction, namely either too exclusive or too inclusive

Shalom,
RRW

Yitro Vs. Ruth

Originally published 2/2/11, 10:35 am.
We read the 10 Dibrot on both P. Yitro and on Shavuot, and technically on vo'Etchanan, too! We also read the Scroll of Ruth on Shavuot so we can easily "connect the dots" between Ruth and the Dibrot

Now let's ask -

What do Yitro and Ruth have in common, and where do they differ?

What they do have in common is the discovery of the ONE TRUE G-D! No denying the sincerity of their common quest for that Holy Grail - so to speak.

Where do they differ?

Yitro found G-d, but - despite his relationship to his daughter and son-in-law - he subsequently abandoned the Jewish People to return to Midian.

Ruth, however, cleaved to Naomi and abandoned Moab to live the life of a beggar in Judea. Her commitment motto? Ameich Ami Veilokayich Elokai!. Her declaration of loyalty to the Jewish Nation preceded her commitment to G-D!

Blasphemy? Adearrabbah - a prerequisite! Yitro is the prototype of the Noahide who has found the True G-d but needs no society.

Ruth is the true convert, the prototypical "Ger Tzedeq" (actually Giyoert of course!). There is one reason to convert to Judaism following one's Spiritual Journey - to join the Priestly Kingdom and the Holy Nation. In truth, to live a life of G-dliness as an individual spiritual seeker needs no Judaism or Peoplehood.

Ruth's progeny? David and Mashiach. Her affiliation to our peoplehood earned her common destiny with us.
Yitro? A good guy to whom we say "fare thee well". Who of Yitro's descendants makes a glorious impact? Not the decscendants of Hever haKeini who are allies.

Any sincere spiritual seeker can find G-d as an individual Noahide, but the prototypical Ger/Giyoret shares Jewish Destiny and Torah, as well as G-d.

Shalom,
RRW

Gabrielle Giffords

First and foremost, the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords must be seen as exactly that -- a tragic shooting, part of a greater tragedy that included the loss of life. My comments below regarding the Jewish status of the Congresswoman should not in anyway be seen as lessening this tragedy. I raise the following simply as an issue within the societal structure of the Jewish community without any implication on the specifics of this case. These questions simply have no bearing on the personal and specific context of this case. On the most basic human level, our heart and prayers go out to the Congresswoman. Her status as a Jew has on bearing on that or on the evil of the act that fell her. Her status as a Jew, however, has great implications on the nature of the Jewish society and community and needs to be addressed.

Simply, the news reports are very clear. Congresswoman Giffords considered herself to be a Jew -- not just a Jew by default but with strong commitments to her ideal of Jewishness. See:
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/09/2742463/giffords-known-both-for-her-openness-and-judaism
and
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/09/wounded-arizona-congresswoman-had-strengthened-jewish-identity/

The difficulty is that, it would seem, by Halachic standards, she is not Jewish as she was born to a Christian Scientist mother. (I write, "it seems", because it is possible that her mother, by Halachic standards, may still be Jewish -- but that doesn't seem the case.) This, of course, is something that occurs every day -- someone Jewish by one definition but not by another, especially the definition that matters most, that of Halacha. Yet, this case must motivate us to think more about this situation. First, look at the language of the news reports -- her definition of her Jewishness is almost taken as a given. More and more, the colloquial understanding of Jewishness is moving away from the Halachic definition. Fifty years ago, the rhetoric on the street was that someone was Jewish if born to a Jewish mother. This is now changing.

The significance is the power and commitment that is also now being attached to this definition of Jewish identity. As mentioned, Congresswoman Giffords sees her self as a Jew and, perhaps more significantly, is seen as a Jew. I saw a further report that clearly defined the person who shot her as linked to an anti-Semitic group. See:
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/09/dhs-memo-suggests-shooter-may-be-linked-racist-organization
My thoughts immediately went to the words of the Rav who said that there were two bonds of Jewish identity: fate and destiny. The Rav, of course, was speaking with the confines of Halacha and a reality of shared fate amongst individuals who met the basic Halachic definition of Jewishness. Now we have a new phenomena. People who bond with us in a context of shared fate yet who do not meet the basic Halachic requirements of Jewish identity. How are we to look at such individuals? Of course, we cannot grant them the status of a Jew because they share our fate but they are also not totally outside our grouping because we do share fate. Josephus speaks of non-Jews who, in the time period before Churban Bayit Sheni identified with the Jewish world although not Jewish. Is that a grouping that we should be looking at more to assist us in dealing with this phenomena? Yet, in Josephus' time, these people knew they were not Jewish.

I am not sure what to do. On one hand, Congresswoman Giffords has aligned herself with the Jewish People -- and may even have been attacked because of it. Still, she is not Halachically Jewish. We cannot deviate from our commitment to the standards of Halacha but a reality of shared fate, it would seem to me, also cannot be ignored. Perhaps we have to come up with a new grouping, but what and how?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Rabbi Angel's Blog on Geirut

For a Halachic review of Geirut - the ideal and the practical
See:

http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/more-issue-conversion-judaism

Question
I knew a ger who kept all mitzvot AFAIK

But on December 25 he would disappear and do XMAS, he simply could not give up that early experience.

Any Comments?

KT
RRW

Secular Conversions

Originally published 6/26/08, 11:23 AM.
I recently saw an article, written by a secular Jew, that proposes, in response to the present conversion controversy, that it is time for Israel to develop what this person termed "secular conversions". What an interesting term -- but what does it exactly mean?
In a certain way, we already have something like secular conversion; they are the secular immigration laws for Israel. But that still doesn't define a person as a Jew? But then again, if we term the process of becoming a Jew as conversion, doesn't that imply some religious connotation to the term -- then what is secular conversion?

What is really happening, is that this secular Jew is simply stating that there should be a procedure that allows individuals to become a Jew like him, i.e. a secular Jew. The problem with the present method of conversion, in this person's mind, is that it does not allow this but rather demands people to become, in some respect Orthodox, religious Jews.
He may have a point, but the real issue that this person still is not willing to face  what this actually says about Jewish identity. Behind the conversion issue and this specific controversy is not simply the question of how someone becomes a Jew but rather, what a Jew, what this term, really means.
If we are simply a national entity like every other nation than like every other nation we should simply have an immigration procedure to let people into our land as citizens. But if we think that there is something unique about being Jewish, that it extends beyond national borders and therefore we define entry into this group in terms such as conversion, it is time to recognize the implications of this and to re-examine what it really means to be a Jew.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Rabbi Riskin on Conversion

Originally published 6/18/08, 12:16 AM. Link doesn't work.
A provocative posting by Rabbi Shlomoh Riskin
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

My favorite night of the year has always been the night of Shavuot, when I go from hill to hill of the seven hills of my beloved city of Efrat, giving Torah study class after Torah study class until the early-morning daybreak service.

....

This year, however was different. Instead of joyous songs, I heard jarring sobs. Instead of the Torah scrolls in the arks and the Torah books on the shelves dancing with rapture and rejoicing, they reeled with dismay and disappointment. The very letters of black fire were weeping, the very parchment of white fire was wilting.
Yes, this Shavuot night, my beloved Torah was crying.

For the remainder of this article please visit:
Jerusalem Post Article

The Conversion "Crisis"

Originally published 5/22/08.
As anyone who has studied the laws of conversion knows, the topic is most complicated. It is understandable why there are many different understandings of the theory behind these laws and, as such, the many disagreements within Halacha in regard to halacha l'ma'aseh. The present "crisis" in Israel in regard to conversion, that is halachic conversion, based on differing opinions, i.e. machloket, is thus most distressing.
The issue is not gerut per se. The issue is how we respond to legitimate machloket in Halacha and the proper response to a psak with which one may disagree or, more correctly in this case, since gerut, conversion, is a decision of a beis din, to a din Torah of another beis din with which one may disagree. This is its own area of the Halacha and needs to be further elucidated. Suffice it to say, in general terms, that a decision of a beis din has its own weight and demands its one respect. It is this issue that really is the issue, not gerut.

After saying all this, though, and recognizing that anyone who has studied the laws of conversion and the laws regarding the authority of beis din must recognize all this, a need does emerge to truly explain what is going on in this matter of conversion. Beyond the question of the authority of a beis din in general, in the case of conversion there actually seems to be great leeway given to a beis din, specifically, at least, in regard to the post facto acceptance of a beis din's decision. So the question, even more so, is what is really going on?

Conversion ultimately would seems to be a policy decision of a beis din. It is the beis din who converts someone and while there are some technical demands that are made upon a potential convert, some of which if not met does prevent a beis din from converting someone even if the beis din wants to convert this person, it is really the beis din that makes the decision of whether it wants to convert a person or not. This is, ultimately, a policy decision as it reflects the theory of a beis din on how to respond to the various reasons why someone may wish to convert, especially in this modern world. I believe that this is really the point of essential difference in how people are responding to the present conversion situation.

The question is the value of non-Halachic Jewishness. Someone wishes to become a Jew, truly identifying with the Jewish People and, in the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik, truly committed to the fate of the Jewish People --- but this person does not wish to follow Halacha. His or her understanding of the essence of the spirit of our people is vastly different than the Halacha envisions, not based on Torah mi Sinai, which is, sadly, the prevalent reality of our people in general. The question is not simply how we view this person but how we view this person's desire and and connection to the "group" known as Bnei Yisrael on the whole. Within the halachic world there is a major disagreement on this issue. There are those who give no value to any non-halachic presentation of Jewishness and there are those who see in it some value albeit wishing for the eventual observance of Torah by all Jews.
How we respond to the issue of conversion, where halachic conversion is also the method by which someone joins the general Jewish "group" (a situation that we also seem to want) is all part of the issue. If we give no value to colloquial Jewishness then we may be strict in our standards of conversion and demand only a full commitment to the observance of Torah from a potential convert. If, though, we see some value in colloquial Jewishness and feel that, as such, a method of conversion that will serve the general Jewish world is necessary as well, then we may find reasons to be more lenient in our response to conversion.

I am actually torn in regard to this issue. Should we maintain relaxed standards on halachic conversion and thereby ensure that most people converting will turn to Orthodoxy in order to convert which will lessen the questions on Jewish identity into the future? Or should we, for the sake of Torah observance, maintain strict standards, thereby effectively sending people to Conservative and Reform rabbis for conversion and raising the potential for an identity crisis within our people in the future? The answer to that question does depend on how one understands the halachic standards of conversion itself but it, also, has much to do with this policy issue. As mentioned, I am really torn.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

An Unintentional Intermarriage - OU Article

Originally published 5/16/08, 5:39 PM. Link no longer works.
What can happen in this society!

"A strange thing happened on the way to my becoming a ba'alat teshuvah: I
discovered I was not a Jew."

For more details see the entire article
http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/38176

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Belief, Conversion and the Mashichist

Originally posted 1/14/08, 10:12 PM. Link no longer works.
A conversion issue has emerged in Israel regarding an individual who believes that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Mashiach. This individual wishes to convert and the Bais Din supervising the conversion did not know how to rule. They have passed the issue on to the Chief Rabbi to render a decision. For further info, see http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c39_a1694/News/International.html

The issue has reinvigorated the debate regarding the Mashichists, those who believe that the Rebbe is Mashiach, and whether this belief is outside the pale of Orthodoxy. What is perhaps more significant about the issue in this case, though, is that it also forces us to truly consider the whole issue of conversion. The case here concerns belief, not action This individual will be a practicing Orthodox Jew -- the question is whether his beliefs meet the standards of Orthodoxy.While that is also a halachic question, we generally avoid such issues, especially in the determination of Orthodox affiliation. Now the issue is on the table. To be Orthodox demands adherence to a specific belief system, albeit in broad in definition. The very fact that the question was and is asked is, in a certain way, more significant than the answer. Orthodoxy has belief parameters.


And this clarifies and solidifies the whole issue of conversion. Orthodox conversion really demands adherence to the spectrum outlined by these broad parameters. The essential problem with non-Orthodox conversion is that the ones supervision the conversion generally do not these belief parameters, so how can they be the ones who have to make the decision that the prospective convert does? It is so interesting that, as evidenced by this article, people can understand an issue of whether a belief in a dead Messiah is acceptable within Judaism -- but they can't seem to understand that there are other issues of belief that also can't be ignored. It just seems that we define Judaism in terms of not being Christian -- and forget all the other issues of belief that are also fundamental in describing the belief structure of Torah. Of course, if we discuss these issues we will have to confront the beliefs arguments within the Jewish world and start understanding the real challenges that are before us. That is why this case is important. It makes us think about what we believe. It is unfortunate, though, that it still can allow us, as shown by some of the comments in this article, to think that the only faith issues that we may have is in comparison to Christianity.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Shoot First or Question First?

Originally published 1/12/08, 11:53 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
A colleague of mine posted on a list the following:

Quoting from:
http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/GPSprotocol.pdf
the new RCA Bet Din Guidelines

What to Expect/Do when Moving to a New Jewish Community

i. A ger, or family of gerim, should inform the local rabbi of their status shortly after moving into the community. This is especially important where a woman converted after she had children (and the children converted together with her), or, as is not uncommon, where the female converted in a non-Orthodox manner before marriage and/or children, and later converted ke'halachah. As the female children in such a situation could not usually marry kohanim, this fact would be important for them – and for the rabbi – to know. If circumstances warrant, the regional Beit Din shall indicate in the conversion document that a female convert was pregnant at the time of conversion.

He then issued the following comment [judgment]:

I'm assuming I don't need to explain how evil this is to the present audience?

I find the tone of this judgment as a bit too judgmental! (Think of it now - ironically, I am now the one being judgmental!)

First of all, there is the sin of labeling. Why use an ad hominem like "evil" in this case? I would think that "evil" is an epithet reserved for the Hitlers or the Osama bin Laden's of the world...

But even if this is indeed evil:

1. Why not post:
   I find this evil - how about you?
2. Or perhaps even a bit less offensive:
   Isn't this evil? Or am I missing something here?
3. Or maybe a bit LESS strident:
   This type of statement seems to lack good judgment. It comes across to ME as offensive and I am sure to many others!

Why do people need to jump to conclusions?

Is it really better to shoot first and ask questions later -
or
Perhaps is it better to ask questions first and then only shoot later on ONLY when REALLY necessary?

E.G.: Why not check WHY the RCA issued these guidelines, and do research to see if they have a valid agenda and Halachic considerations? If this indeed lacked the proper due diligence in substance or form, THEN tell them privately FIRST before going public?
-

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com