UTJ, YCT, etc.

A comment:

«Actually, if you look at the UTJ vs the now-defunct Edah, many will tell you that what doomed the UTJ from greater growth was its reluctance to embrace the "women's issue" as a cause celebre. that cost them hundreds of thousands, if not 7 digits in potential donations. the other reality was that since it was founded by non-Orthodox though halachicly-based disciples of R Saul Lieberman, tz'l, it would never have captured even the mainstream Left of Orthodoxy to fully embrace it.
over the years, many of its members have traveled comfortably between Edah, YCT, Drisha, JOFA, etc. Truth is they all approach halakha very similarly ...
in my view, UTJ will never receive the full credit it deserves for its Mi Yehudi proposal, its Pesach Hotline, Kosher Nexus, Lieberman yahrzeit program (hope they revive that one), and its interesting Tomeikh K'Halakha, which provided a more moderate halackicly-based responsa before there was YCT or the Inst for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. but it is equally clear that many of its ideas were embraced and more successfully marketed by others.»

Halachic Template For Women's Ordination Isn't New | The Jewish Week


Best Regards,
RRW

From Open O to Neo-Cons

R Asher Lopatin:

«But my dream is to have Hebrew Union College, the Jewish Theological Seminary, Hadar, and Chovevei on one campus, to move in together. We'd each daven in our own ways, but it could transform the Upper West Side.

R Avrham Gordimer:

«There is not much more to say. The path to total abandonment of Orthodoxy has been set in motion, and the ball is in the court of Open Orthodoxy's leadership. Serious introspection and swift action are indeed needed.»

From Openness to Heresy | Cross-Currents



Best Regards,
RRW

Israeli Haredis View their American Counterparts with a Measure of Condescension

«The "Primacy of Torah" was an apt phrase for the motto for the azkarah, as it hints that there is something else that serves as a necessary supplement to the study of Torah, namely, making money. The pragmatic approach of Lakewood stands in stark contrast to that of the Lithuanian Haredi community in Israel, where the prevailing ideology is one of, "Only Torah." Yeshiva students there are expected to devote their entire lives to the study of Torah; secular education and jobs are actively discouraged. According to Dr. Benjamin Brown, a Hebrew University lecturer whose research focus is Orthodox Judaism and Haredi society, Israeli Haredis view their American counterparts with a measure of condescension: The bourgeois lifestyle of American Haredis may be acceptable "for them" in America, but not in Israel, where the Haredis hold themselves to a higher, less compromising, and more austere standard. Torah study itself in America is also considered by Israeli Haredis to be on a lower level, which Brown believes is supported by the fact that "American bochurim [unmarried yeshiva students] come to learn in Israel, not vice versa." The same perspective was shared with me by Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer, a Haredi religious court judge in Jerusalem. According to Pfeffer, the "mainstream" Israeli Haredi "looks upon his Lakewood counterpart as being part of the American experience of affluence and luxury and generally believes that Torah greatness cannot emerge from America—even from Lakewood."»

More From. Tablet Magazine



Best Regards,
RRW

Why Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter Resigned from Conservative Judaism

«I believe that the modern Jew is given the choice to choose between two irreconcilable
orthodoxies. Given the vehemence, which has assumed eschatological proportions, in which the issues of women rabbis and cantors has been pushed--Dr. Schorsch pointed to a 9-3 decision of the CJLS in 1974 without telling anyone that the 9 votes opposed women cantors and he waves the so-called "Roth responsum" which was not even accepted by the CJLS or the faculty of JTS--it is clear that feminism is now a new fundamentalism.

I choose the orthodoxy of Jewish tradition over the orthodoxy of current secular taste.»

Why Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter Resigned from the Rabbinical Assembly and Left Conservative Judaism | YUTOPIA



Best Regards,
RRW

Who Hijacked Feminism

My Mom A"H was a self-described feminist. To her, this implied such things as
1. Equal Pay for Equal Work
2. Women's Suffrage
3. Men sharing in household chores, etc.

But she specifically rejected the trend of "Masculating Women." She never wore pants - except to clean around the house. She wanted to be FEMININE, and not become an ersatz man.

She headed the Women's Division of the Hebrew Academy of Greater Hartford and sat on the board of directors of that institution. But she never needed to validate herself by
1. Leading Services in Shul
2. Taking an Aliyah
3. Reading the Torah
Etc.

What changed? When did Feminism stop Honouring Feminity and start pushing for Me Too Masculinity, a la Anat Hoffman?

Best Regards,
RRW

DSK

Originally published 7/7/11, 1:49 pm.
Maybe this is just so obvious to everyone and that is why no one is mentioning it but there is a subtle moral yardstick (or lack of moral yardstick) that is accompanying the Strauss-Kahn matter that it is important to recognize.

The issue seems to be only if he attacked this woman or not but not that there was sexual contact between the two. There seems to be pretty good evidence that there was. Yet, we are seeing DSK's wife standing beside him -- they held hands as they left the courtroom -- and the discussion in France about whether he should run for President or not seems to only focus on the issue of rape. It seems that no cares, not even his wife, if he committed adultery.

Compare this to Clinton and while he escaped any consequences, his actions still led to impeachment. No one expected Hillary to immediately be lovey-dovey with him either although now, at least publicly, she seems to have forgiven him. But there was an expectation that he needed to be forgiven by his wife. And, of course, the Terminator is being sued for divorce by his wife, so there seems to be at least some bastions of marriage morality. But DSK seems to be only under scrutiny for sexual assault -- not his sexual morality.
Is this a reflection of French culture and that is why its not a factor in his bid for that country's Presidency? Or does it reflect something much more and touches upon North American society? While it is to be expected that Maria would be angry at Arnold's indiscretions are we, as a society, also equally at home with DSK's wife seemingly acceptance of her husband's indiscretions? And what does this say about the world we live in?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

When Political Correctness Overtakes Torah Values

Originally published 6/30/11, 1:09 pm.
Anti-circumcision call gets London Jewish rep. fired
--------------------

Perhaps the subject of a new poll would be
"how many of society's values are good to incorporate into a Torah Community?"

Shalom,
RRW

Half Shabbos, Big-Tent Orthodoxy, Texting, and eBooks

Originally published 11/13/10, 1:01 pm.
Regarding Texting on Shabbat.
To Text?
Or NOT
To Text?
What will they
Think of Next?

«... it might mean that Orthodoxy has become more tolerant of non-observance in its ranks as much as it might mean that there is increasing non-observance in its ranks. In other words, there may or may not be a greater attrition rate from Orthodox observance, but even those people who give up observance are increasingly likely to remain within the Orthodox orbit..»

For example, I've witnessed many many Orthos not fasting on the "Minor Fasts".
On The Contrary: Half Shabbos, Big-Tent Orthodoxy, Texting, and eBooks

Shalom
RRW

18. Acquiring a Scroll of Law

 -->

I was troubled by the recent Yeshiva University panel on homosexuality in Orthodoxy, but only as a symptom of (what seems to me to be) a much larger problem, only as I would be similarly troubled by a panel of the same format discussing Zionism or the Role of Art in Orthodoxy or any other such topic facing religious Judaism today. The venue was important politically, socially, and, I would say, morally. For a Torah-absent world, this was, perhaps, an important panel. But for a world that traces its lineage back to Revelation, this kind of panel concerns me.

When we reflect on the experience at Sinai, we envision a moving, inspirational occurrence. And this may very well be an accurate depiction of what happened there. But the essence of the experience is the transmission of Truth. Can the giving of the Torah be accomplished in a manner that does not make the heart race? Perhaps not. But when we study the giving of the Torah at Sinai, we are particularly attuned to the veracity of the gift, not its believability.

In a Torah World, there is an objective, attainable Truth. Though the modern scientist may be the greatest historical advocate of an atheistic conception of the universe, he is also one of my closest ideological relatives, far closer, in many respects, than the average spiritualist, politician or, truthfully, common theist. Because the scientist responds to reality with the overarching hypothesis that this existence is ours to comprehend systematically. That is, the scientist seeks quantifiable, verifiable, universally communicable answers. The manner in which a scientific discovery is presented will have no bearing on its eventual acceptance (at least among other scientists) as real or false: even the driest, dullest presentation of the roundness of the Earth will not make the world flat.

But political leaders will often rise or fall on the basis of their skills as an orator. So, too, the illusionist, the magician, the psychic, the preacher, or the activist. When I heard that George Clooney had arranged an MTV telethon for Haiti, I thought it was good and necessary. But, I hope, not for Orthodox Jews. What is my halachic role in this world tragedy? The factors that go into answering this question are complex and extensive. But my obligation probably does not hinge on George Clooney’s (or the cast of Twilight’s) ability to rouse my emotions.

This is not to say that my emotional response is irrelevant in halachic decision-making. Certainly the broad scope of viable charities today presents me with choices when fulfilling my tzedakah obligations. On a larger scale, my choice of community, shul and/or rabbi must predate ‘blind’ faith. The role of the individual in Halacha is essential. But personal choices should be propelled by the same fuel that is expected to fuel general halachic analysis: the pursuit of Truth.

While we do not really understand what the pursuit of Truth entails, we can accept that there is no Truth without honesty. To be honest, though, means more than simply expressing facts. It means that all agendas are abandoned for the only agenda that should matter to us, the Truth-driven agenda.

Was there a Truth-driven agenda behind the homosexuality panel? To a certain extent, I believe there was. But it is also obvious that the purpose of the panel was not merely to inform the public of a certain plight in modern Orthodoxy—it was also to increase sympathy and to convince the public that this issue requires more attention. Had the panellists admitted beforehand that they were going to speak about how homosexuality was a minor issue that did not deserve anybody’s attention (which is, obviously, not what they said), would they have been included on the panel?

George Clooney will not ask someone to speak on his telethon who will say that Haiti is not where we should be sending our money right now. Not because such an opinion is evil or unfounded, but because it acts counter to his agenda. I don’t know if this is a problem in a world that does not believe in an accessible, objective Truth. Since I believe that I am working my way towards something outside of myself, though, I do not want to be stirred towards sympathy, neither for Haiti nor for homosexuals (or Zionists or Jewish artists, et cetera), because such tactics distract me from the external and blur my focus.

But I don’t think we should be critical of the people who put together this panel. What else could they do? This is the environment in which they find themselves. Somewhere along the way, the Orthodox world became susceptible to persuasion. And not only susceptible to it but, apparently, endorsing it. I don’t know where it originated or how far back it goes. I know that the ba’al teshuva movement seems like an easy target: how can an NCSY advisor tell a sixteen year-old boy that his personal desire to be religious is significant and then tell him that, now that he is religious, his personal emotional responses should be secondary to his attempt at an objective assessment of reality? If we tell the non-religious person that his/her spiritual/emotional/psychological/philosophical impulse to enter the door into religion should be heeded, how can we tell the religious person that his/her similar impulse to exit that door should be dismissed?

But, most likely, the ba’al teshuva movement is a response to this reality, not the originator of it. On a global plane, the same can be said of the advertising industry: did infomercials create the 3am shopper or did the 3am shopper demand infomercials?

If teenagers are asking for spiritual satisfaction, isn’t it necessary for Judaism to have an answer for them? (Is it better that they look elsewhere?) If Jews are ignoring the tragedy in Haiti, doesn’t somebody (be it George Clooney or the local JCC) need to compel us towards, at least, awareness? If homosexuality is being compared to bestiality in an Orthodox yeshiva, don’t we need to present the depth and weight of the homosexual struggle?

Yes, of course we do.

The problem cannot be seen to be simply that a panel of this nature was held in an Orthodox environment. The much bigger problem is: why did anybody care? You’re telling me that the frum-from-birth Talmud-scholar with homosexual desires deserves a great amount of sympathy? This is supposed to be newsworthy?

I do not want George Clooney to tell me what to feel. I want to be presented with the facts and I would like to be able to trust myself to respond with emotional sincerity. Unfortunately, when I invite persuasion, I weaken my ability to accurately accomplish this task. Try, for example, watching a sad movie on mute (with subtitles)—without the soundtrack, you are less likely to cry. I think it was Woody Allen who said that with the invention of the laugh-track, television writers didn’t have to be funny anymore.

If we believe that a Torah World inherently includes accessible Truth, then we cannot accept an agenda driven by anything other than Truth. That means we have to fight against our subservience to persuasion. But before we can do that, we need to reintegrate the cerebral and the empathetic. It is not acceptable that a yeshiva student lacks the inherent ability to empathise with his homosexual chavruta. This sensitivity should emerge concurrently with the Halachic investigation. Until this happens, the Halachic world will continue to ask for emotional psak—“Rabbi, how should I feel about the homosexual?”—and will continue to be susceptible to emotional persuasion. We will move further and further from Truth as we lose our ability to be honest, and, though we will provide assistance to Haiti and spiritually curious Jews will gravitate towards Orthodoxy and, yes, the homosexual will be treated better by the halachic world, what will any of it have to do with Torah?

17. A King to Write a Scroll of Law

--> TB Sanhedrin 21b: “When he goes to battle, it will be found with him; when he returns, it will return with him. When he sits in judgment, it will be with him; when he sits to eat, it will be beside him.”

This mitzvah addresses an important, but not quite revelational, fact: the king is human.

As a human, the king is susceptible to such human weaknesses as conceit, stubbornness and materialism. The great power that is inherited with the throne would, arguably, make any man particularly prone to the kinds of flaws that reflect exaggerated self-aggrandizement.

For this reason, the king writes for himself a Torah scroll and carries the scroll with him wherever he goes. This scroll acts as a constant reminder, to keep him aware of his humanity and his subservience to God.

This type of commandment is not uncommon. Many Torah laws are said to be directed at Imperfect Man. Even if you do not agree with the Rambam's belief that it is possible to have a gezeirah on the de'oraitha level, it is not irregular for a mitzvah to be considered essentially designed to give the flawed Jew an instruction manual for proper behaviour in a given circumstance.

Still, we accept that our humanity should not be seen as an excuse to strive for anything less than perfection. These laws are instituted to assist Man in responding to, but certainly not for the sake of preserving, his imperfections.

This is the classic approach to this mitzvah, and it is the classic approach to many mitzvoth.

Unfortunately, whenever it is suggested that the purpose underlying a mitzvah is human imperfection, the mitzvah takes on the role of walking stick, designed exclusively in response to unfortunate or undesired circumstances. Here, for example, we focus on the king's inadequacies, more concerned with the king we likely will have rather than with the king we actually want to have.

The result of this approach is that Torah-observant Jews view themselves as inherently diseased and decrepit, worthy of existence only because they adhere to the strict regimen presented by the Torah. This view disregards tzelem elokim, that we were crafted in the Image of God, that there is something valuable about the human qua human. We have the capacity to outgrow the walking stick; there is an existence wherein we do not lean on Torah but rather rise alongside it.

Let us examine this possibility by imagining three levels of kingship:

1. The king who does not respond to the Torah scroll. With or without scroll in hand, this king responds the same way. He is immune to the effects of the Torah. This king is beyond help—even with the walking stick, he can't walk. Such a king should never rule the Jewish people.

2. The king who will respond differently with the Torah in hand. This is the king from the classic approach: he needs the Torah scroll to keep him aware of his own humanity and to keep his predilection towards greed and arrogance in check. This can be compared to the man who cannot walk unassisted but responds positively to a walking stick.

3. The king who responds properly with or without the Torah scroll in hand—the man who walks fine without the assistance of a walking stick.

The third category appears to describe the king most removed from imperfection, and one can wonder whether such a king is obligated to write and carry a Torah scroll for anything other than ceremonial reasons.

It is tempting to assume that the best possible king is this third-category king. But this mitzvah may indicate differently. Perhaps the classic approach reflects only one side of this mitzvah, the side that applies to Imperfect Man. On the opposite side is the ideal king, the king that we all want, and this mitzvah may have equal relevancy there.

Consider the direction given to mothers flying with young children: the woman is instructed, in case of an emergency, to put the mask on herself first and then to assist her child. In other words, the mother is instructed to override her natural maternal instinct. Like with the king, we can assume three kinds of mothers:

1. The mother who ignores this direction and assists her baby first.

2. The mother who instinctively is driven to help her baby first but responds to the direction and puts her own mask on first.

3. The mother who does not require the directions and realizes on her own that the logical thing to do is to help herself first.

It might be assumed that the third mother is the best mother: without any external assistance, she is able to properly care for her child.

But we have to ask ourselves: do we really want a world populated by mothers like the kind described in category three? While the natural maternal instinct may at times lead a woman astray, wouldn’t we prefer mothers that need to be told to assist themselves first to mothers that make this assessment on their own? Mothers in the second category, though dependent, more closely resemble the ideal mother than the mothers described in the third category. This mother cares for her child in a uniquely maternal way, and that is particularly what we look for in a mother: that she is good at being a mother.

Something similar applies here: the ideal king is the king who needs the Torah scroll in his arms. As with the maternal instinct, the king-instinct should be of a certain character. We want our kings to be, in a word, kingly. This instinct, though ideal, does not always direct the king along the proper path. This is why he carries the Torah. We do not want a king in battle (or in judgment, or at a meal) who would act the same with or without the Torah in hand. We want our kings to feel indestructible and all-powerful. This is crucial to the king-consciousness. We do not want kings who resist this sensation: such men, though they do not require the Torah scroll in hand, are not meant to be kings.

Economists long-ago recognized the deleterious effects of complete independence. (Yissachar and Zevulun came to similar conclusions.) The mitzvoth have a role to play in assisting the imperfect. But this should not be seen as their limit. Quite possibly, there is a message in the mitzvah that will help to define the ideal. And it may be different than what we would assume to be the ideal. Dependency should not be confused with imperfection—it can arise out of weakness, but it can also arise out of strength. The former kind of dependency is to be avoided, but the latter can be a good thing, allowing mothers to be mothers and kings to be kings. In accepting that the mitzvoth are not designed exclusively for the weak, but are designed specifically to compel the strong to be even stronger, we challenge ourselves as Torah observant Jews to excel and move beyond the cowering archetype of the Feeble Believer.

9. Sanctifying God’s Name

Would you die to defend God’s Name?

It really doesn’t come up much in our daily lives, thankfully. Our faith is not generally held at gunpoint. The positive side of this is obvious and we should be constantly aware and appreciative of this relative luxury. But what might we lose in a world that doesn’t mortally threaten us at the core of our religious beliefs?

What does it take to be religious in modern times? Eating restrictions? Who, in our world today, is not on some kind of diet? Daily commitments? You go to synagogue, he gets piano lessons, she volunteers at the orphanage—everyone has commitments. Structured behaviour? We all have our hobbies and idiosyncrasies.

You study the Torah while they study ancient architecture—so what? We rest on Saturday while they go the spa or meditate in the garden—so what? She won’t wear pants and she won’t wear skirts and he won’t wear shirts—so what?

It’s what we call a lifestyle. And the fact is, everybody sacrifices to maintain one, not just religious people. What makes your lifestyle decisions distinct from anybody’s lifestyle decisions?

A friend of mine never wore a kippah. I didn’t have to ask him the reason. I knew why he never wore a kippah: he didn’t believe in God. He was raised religious, went to religious schools, had religious friends, but at some point in his life he realized he didn’t believe in it. One night, a couple of years ago, he was particularly excited about a woman he was going out with. She was, as he described her, everything he wanted: “Smart, funny, beautiful…frum.” As he left for the date, just after spraying cologne on his neck, just before putting a mint in his mouth, he pulled a kippah out of his pocket and clipped it to his hair.

Later that night, after the date was over (and the kippah was off again), my friend explained: “You’re right. I don’t believe in it. But it’s still the best way I know to raise your kids, to have a family, to be part of a good community.”

Now if my friend were put in a position where he had to choose between death and defaming God’s name, the choice would be easy. He’s an atheist. It’s about lifestyle, and, as the name suggests, without life there’s not much to style.

But what about us, the so-called Believers? Could we face death eye-to-eye for God?

From where we stand, our religious practice is, by outside standards, indistinguishable, in essence, from any other lifestyle-choice. Your actions cannot prove your motives. Everything we do can be done for multiple reasons. How removed are we, in truth, from my friend’s drive for a lifestyle?

Although it’s certainly not always easy to follow Halacha, what ulterior incentives might compel us to adhere to it, regardless of faith?

Put yourself ten feet from a six-man firing squad. Beside you is a short, stout gold statue depicting a creature you’ve never seen before. You have thirty seconds to decide: bow down and declare the statue god or stand and await execution. What do you do?

Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte

Originally published 5/16/08, 6:05 PM.
A bit odd, but interesting. Vive Lafitte!
KT
RRW

This recent article is about the most famous Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte.

It was written by a former professor from Temple University, Professor Bernard Glick:

Many of the pirates of the Caribbean were Sephardic Jews who turned to piracy to get revenge on the Spanish Catholics who expelled them from Spain in 1492, murdered their families and stole their property. Six of Barbarossas chief officers were Jewish! This article sheds light on one of the most famous Jewish Pirates: Jean Lafitte the Jewish Pirate.

One of the things I do since I retired from Philadelphia's Temple University is lecture on cruise ships. My signature talk is the 50-century old history of piracy whose practitioners I call the Seafaring Gangsters of the World. A few weeks before my first gig, I sent a draft of the talk to my history buff sister, Phyllis. She liked it, but was very unhappy that I had not mentioned Jean Lafitte. I told her I didn't include him because I intended to deal with the economics, the sociology, and the politics of piracy. She said I simply had to talk about Lafitte because he was unique. He was a Sephardic Jew.

In his prime, Lafitte ran not just one pirate sloop but a whole fleet of them simultaneously. He even bought a blacksmith shop in New Orleans, which he used as a front for fencing pirate loot. And he was one of the few buccaneers who didn't die in battle, in prison, or on the gallows. Though I didn't lecture about Lafitte at first, a circumstance of serendipity has made me do so ever since. I was flying to Norfolk, Virginia. The man in the seat next to me wore a skullcap and he began chatting with me in Gaelic-accented English. Though born in France, the friendly passenger now lives in Switzerland. We quickly established that we were both Jewish and that both of us had taught in Israel.

Then we had the following conversation:

What are you doing on this plane? I asked.

I'm a mathematician. I work for an American company and I'm flying to Norfolk today because it has the US Navy's largest naval base and my company is trying to get a Navy contract. Now, what are you doing on this plane?
My wife and I are picking up a cruise ship in Norfolk.
Taking a vacation?

Not entirely. I'll be giving lectures on the ship...... as many, in fact, as there are full days at sea.

What do you lecture about?
Since cruise lines frown on controversial topics. I have talked about Israel once or twice, but I usually talk about Latin America, which is my second specialty, or the Panama Canal or Mexico's Isthmus of Tehantepec, or the voyages of Captain Cook to the South Pacific. But I always begin a cruise with a lecture on pirates. The kids love it and the old folks like it too.
Are you going to talk about Jean Lafitte?

No. And I repeated what my sister had told me.

He pulled out his wallet and handed me a business card. It had Melvyn J. Lafitte written on it. Then he said, I am a direct descendent of Jean Lafitte. Your sister, Phyllis, is absolutely right. Our family, originally named Lefitto, lived in the Iberian Peninsula for centuries. When Ferdinand and Isabella re-conquered Spain and expelled the Jews in 1492, most of the Jews fled to North Africa. Others went to the Balkans or to Greece and Turkey. But some Sephardic Jews, my ancestors among them, crossed the Pyrenees and settled in France, where Jean was born in about 1780. He moved to French Santo Domingo during the Napoleonic period. However, a slave rebellion forced him to flee to New Orleans. Eventually he became a pirate, but he always called himself a privateer because that label has a more legal ring to it.

In 1814, the British sought his aid in their pending attack on New Orleans. However, he passed their plans to the Americans and helped General Andrew Jackson beat them in 1815. A grateful Jackson, not yet President, saw to it that Lafitte and his family became American citizens. And, by the way, did you know that there is a town of Jean Lafitte, as well as a Jean Lafitte National Historical Park in Southwestern Louisiana?

I was flabbergasted, not so much by the saga of Jean Lafitte as retold by a proud descendant, but by the fact that the two of us had met so coincidentally in the skies over Georgia. Melvyn Lafitte lives in Geneva and I live in Portland, Oregon. These cities are 5,377 miles apart. Unlike him, I am mathematically challenged, so I don't know what the statistical probability is that a descendant of the Franco-Jewish-American pirate Jean Lafitte would board an airplane and sit next to me as I was agonizing over whether to mention his famous ancestor in my forthcoming talk.

Jewish history is replete with vivid coloring

Potential Split in Orthodoxy?

Originally published 5/13/08, 12:52 PM. Link to The Jewish Week no longer works.
Dr. Marc Shapiro's recent comments in the Jewish Week -- See

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a9351/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html# have initiated much discussion and debate. There is no doubt a growing friction between the Charedi and Modern Orthodox world, yet Dr. Shapiro's suggestion that MO should, so to speak, break away from the Charedi world has an essential problem for MO. It will demand the MO not maintain one of its fundamental principles.

The essence of Modern Orthodoxy can be viewed from two perspectives. One is the specific behaviour of MO that distinguishes it from the behaviour of, let us say, the Charedi world. For example, MO is more favourable to the State of Israel. Of course this distinction is not absolute. There are Charedi individuals with positive feelings for the State and MO individuals who are more distant from the State but this distinction in behaviour generally stands. In a variety of behaviour there is a distinction between the Charedi world and the MO world and how one personally behaves will define which world he or she is in or he or she is put in.

There is though another major distinction between the MO world and the Charedi world and that is the distinction based on wisdom and authority. The Charedi world advocates for the value of authority -- thus its fostering of commitment to the Gedolim simply in their person of Gadol. The MO world values wisdom, thus even as they also have Gedolim, it fosters allegiance to these Gedolim because of the arguments that these Gedolim present to support their positions. Of course this dividing line is not absolute and, as there is value in both authority and wisdom, one may find the advocacy of each value, at some time, in both communities, yet there is a greater stress on authority in the Charedi world, and in wisdom in the MO world. (For more on the issue of authority and wisdom, see my article Authority and Wisdom: the Slifkin Affair.

The result is the following. The Charedi world has an easier time discounting the opinion of one scholar, even a great Torah scholar, outside of its orbit. What it ultimately values is allegiance to the position of its Gedolim, simply as authority and discounts the value of wisdom, per se, especially wisdom that points to an opposing position. Yet in the MO world, the opinion of even a singular scholar cannot so easily be dismissed, for the wisdom that may be found in this viewpoint is valued and desired. MO scholars study the Satmar Rav, the Chazon Ish and other similar Charedi gedolim because MO wishes to embrace the entire spectrum of opinions and gain an appreciation of the entire realm of Torah thought. As such, the Charedim can more easily set up parameters that push their viewpoint for the wisdom in an opposing viewpoint falls in the face of the authrity the the Charedi position and the person of the Charedi Gedolim. That is not so for MO. It will always see value in knowing and studying the position of all Torah scholars even those out of the Charedi world and, as such, give respect to all Torah scholars.

So to call for what Dr. Shapiro is asking really presents a problem for, in a way, it is a call for MO not act as MO.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Chumra and the Challenge to the Torah Ideal

Originally posted 1/15/08, 12:58 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I draw your attention to the following post, entitled,  "Too Stringent By Half," at The Blog of Garnel Ironheart, (I have reproduced the post below but do still direct you to this blog for interesting posts.)

"I recalled years ago eating at the Shabbos table of a man who davened at the Agudah shul in Toronto. We spoke about various matters, amongst them how hard it was to find chalav Yisroel candy bars (for his kids, me I'm a Mars Bar kind of guy).
He sighed and, in what I can only decribe as a moment of unguarded weakness, noted: "When I was a kid, we used to stop in at the corner store on the way home from school and pick out any candy bar we wanted. We never heard of hecsherim on them. Now I can't buy a candy for my children unless it's chalav Yisroel. When did this happen? Uri Orbach of Ynet notes the same creeping stringency in the ongoing commotion surrounding separate seating in public buses that service the Chareidi population. He correctly points out that concepts and ideas that even the most stringent Jews would not have thought about thirty years ago have now become normative within the Chareidi community which, in turn, is attempting to impose its standards on the rest of the frum world.
This is how the process generally works. Someone comes up with a chumrah (you've all certainly heard of the Chumrah-of-the-Week club). Many times it's either a ba'al teshuvah looking for ways to up his observance so that he doesn't feel inferior to his frum-from-birth friends or it's a rabbi in an outreach setting who has a particular liking for this crazy stringency but knows that preaching to people who know what he's talking about will just get him laughed at. But ba'al teshuvahs? They'll try anything!
The next step is that other people see these stringencies being practised and when they ask about them they receive an innocent look back: "Well, it says in the that you're supposed to." And, either through insecurity or a fear of being left behind, these other people begin to pick up the chumrah. Finally, widescale observance spreads through the community and outsiders who refuse to hop on the bandwagon are categorized as "less frum" because they don't accept this chumrah which was almost universally ignored until recently.
Now, I'm not talking about actual halachos that fell into disuse over the centuries such as shaatnez, a married woman covering her hair, or chalav Yisroel in certain places. What I am talking about is sleeves that must go to the wrist (just below the elbow is fine according to most mainstream sources) and separate seating on buses.
All these little things slowly redefine what's considered normative in Torah observance and leave more and more people who are really shomer mitzvos out of the increasing rigid group of people who believe that it is they who define what a mitzvah is and what it isn't. It behooves us to remember that a way of observance, if supported by legitimate halachic sources, is as legitimate and "strict" as any other, regardless of the external differences."

The following is the comment I entered in response to the post.

"Why someone adopts a chumra of a certain nature reflects an overall gestalt in the person's understanding of the Torah ideal. Why someone does not adopt a certain chumra should be of the same nature -- reflecting one's perception of the overall Torah ideal and the perception that abiding by this chumra would detract from an ideal. We, throughout Shas, encounter many members of Chazal being described as having a specific chumra. Two important observations emerge. One is that the other members of Chazal who did not adopt this chumra still had respect for the person who had this chumra, recognizing that it reflected a specific value that this person desired to highlight in his observance of Torah. Two, that the other members of Chazal who did not adopt the chumra did not feel that they were missing something in their religious observance thereby. They understood that this chumra was not for them and would detract from their path to the Torah ideal that they wished for themselves.
"The difficulty of this new world of chumras, besides the obvious ridiculousness of some of these 'chumras of the month' is that they envision a monolithic vision of the Torah ideal for everyone, thus weakening the real dynamics of Torah. There is an ideal beyond the chumra; in fact there is a spectrum of ideals beyond a specific chumra and we have to find the ideal that connects to us -- and that incorporates a specific individual mixture of chumra and kullah that furthers the ideal. For example, it is strongly suggested that a talmid chacham not accept additional fasts -- as fasting will negatively impact on his learning. Thus for one person, a fast is a good thing, for another it is not. A monolithic vision that maintains that fasting is always inherently an act of tziddkus in simply wrong.
"But the reaction to chumra must include a recognition of a value in the kullah towards creating a specific Torah ideal. The case of the chocolate bar is on point. If the desire to have more chocolate is simply seen as a hedonistic, animalistic drive that wants to be satisfied and the kullah is simply allowing this over a higher religious commitment to chalav Yisrael, then the chumra will win and the kullah will be seen as negative -- and to some extent rightfully so. But if one perceives a value in the lifestyle that includes the ability to have easier access to chocolate and one understands the Torah ideal that includes this value and constructs a Torah lifestyle that includes the value, one has an argument to withstand the monolithic pressure of the chumra world.
"What is necessary is not the argument that the kullah is okay too. What is necessary is the argument that the kullah is part of an overall Torah ideal that one wishes to strive for, against the monolithic and narrow vision of the Torah ideal of the chumrah world."

Comments?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Launch of Yad HaChazakah

Originally published 1/13/08, 4:12 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
On Sunday, Jan. 13, the Official Launch of Yad HaChazakah - The Jewish Disablilty Empowerment Center was held in Brooklyn. As the Rabbinic Advisor to Yad, I was invited to participate in the program but unfortunately I was unable to attend. The following greetings to those who attended were , though, read for me. I now share them with you. More information about Yad is available at its website, http://www.yad-jdec.org/, now http://www.yadempowers.org/.


"First, I wish to thank my daughter Dodi-Lee for reading my Greetings and I would also like to congratulate my daughter Tikva for her work on the Launch on behalf of Yad. I am sure that this event is most glorious and it deserves to be, for the launch of an organization such as Yad HaChazakah – The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center is significant. I am truly sorrowful that my health considerations caused me to personally be unable attend today but I look forward to attending Yad events in the future as we continue to mark the success of this organization.

"I first met Sharon and Wayne Lacks over 20 years ago as I was living in the New York area at the time. Sharon attended the various weekly classes that I gave – all of them! -- as she ran about in her motorized wheelchair. Through her participation in the shiurim, her brilliance was obvious. Her energy was contagious. Her commitment to Torah and Torah study was emphatic. In the close friendship that has developed over the years between my wife, Naomi, and I and the Lackses, we have gotten to know a couple whose dedication to Torah and humanity is a model and inspiration for all of us – and it is with deep feelings of pride and joy that I am able to voice these greetings as Sharon fulfills her dream of establishing a Torah organization to empower people with disabilities within our community,.

"Empowerment is the key word – and it has been a matter of discussion – sometimes heated discussion – between myself and Sharon and Wayne over the years. What does the Torah say in regard to people with disabilities? What does the Torah say about the secular, legal understanding, and actualization, of empowerment? The answers are not simple. The Torah response to the problems faced by people with disabilities may not be necessarily similar to the responses presented by American society – but that is not to say that we, the Torah community, do not have a problem or that there are not Torah responses to these problems. Yad HaChazakah’s mandate is to identify the problems that we must face and to determine the proper Torah response to these problems. This is its unique mandate. It is committed to act – and so it shall act, but al pi Torah.

"There is much work to be done. Unfortunately, the Orthodox community, at times, has a tendency to apply objective standards of evaluation that do not truly define the individual merit of each person. We look at the disability, not the person. This demands education and Yad is committed to this end. We also, often, lose sight of the full range of sensitivities that the Torah demands of us – including being sensitive to every individual’s right of dignity. We often, motivated by a drive to do chesed, lose sight of the fact that in our giving, we can often belittle the taker. The Torah call to help demands of us to also empower an individual so that he/she does not feel the negativity of this belittlement but rather is celebrated as one with inherent value. Yad is committed to this end as well.

"When Moshe Rabbeinu is approached by Hashem to lead Klal Yisrael out of Egypt, he responds by questioning who will listen to him as he has a speech impediment, a disability. Hashem responds by saying that Aharon can speak for him. The message would seem to be that the person with a disability has to live with his/her limitation and that one with a speech impediment, in order to be heard, should get someone else to speak for them. The Sfas Emet has a different understanding of Moshe’s concern – and it is only to this concern that Hashem finally listens. The Sfas Emet says that Moshe’s concern is the people’s ability to listen. Moshe has a speech impediment because communication demands a speaker and a listener and that, in this case, he is limited in his speech because the people are limited in their ability to hear. Similarly, Moshe Rabbeinu had a similar problem with Pharaoh – one for which he always needed someone to state his message for Pharaoh. But in regard to Klal Yisrael, Moshe eventually was able to speak directly to the people without another speaking for him. The people had learned. Moshe Rabbeinu’s speech impediment was effectively removed for the people learned the importance of listening to him – they understood this importance.

"We learn in the gemara in Sanhedrin, the importance of every single Jewish life – according to some girsa'ot, readings, of every single human being. This calls upon us to help every individual to achieve their Divine potential and their singular importance. Disabilities, though, do not only exist for the one who is disabled. They also can be impediments to our ability to see this simple value of the importance inherent in every person. We must overcome this impediment in ourselves as well. This is a message of Torah – and to this end Yad is also committed.

"My brachot for the success of Yad and my congratulations are extended to Sharon, Wayne and the entire Board of Yad on a successful launch. Mei chayil l’chayil. It is mine and my family’s – Naomi, Dodi-Lee, Chai, Tikva and Razi’s -- prayers that this launch will bring Yad to ever increasing heights as it continues its Torah mission for the Jewish community."

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

On Torah And Superstition

Originally published 1/12/08, 11:35 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Despite the Ghetto in Eastern Europe, North Americans are even MORE likely to accept superstition as a part of Torah Judaism.

See the follow direct quote from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B._Soloveitchik

Own criticism of his students

Soloveitchik stated that although he felt that he successfully transmitted the facts and laws of Judaism to his students, he felt that he failed in transmitting the experience of living an authentic Jewish life. He stated that many of his students "act like children and experience religion like children. This is why they accept all types of fanaticism and superstition. Sometimes they are even ready to do things that border on the immoral. They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it....After all, I come from the ghetto. Yet I have never seen so much naïve and uncritical commitment to people and to ideas as I see in America....All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." (A Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah: Introductory Section, David Shatz, Yeshiva University, Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute).

We are commanded: Tamim Yihyeh Im Hashem Elokecha - Be STRAIGHTFORWARD, don't use magic etc. It is sad how many abuse superstition in the name of Religion!

Is there such a thing as an esoteric side to Torah and to Life? Yes, but as the Rambam warns us: this is province of the select few. The masses are not intellectually or emotionally ready to tread those grounds. As the Talmud itself has warned us - four entered Pardes - only ONE left unscathed.

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

The Irony of Chanukah

Originally published 12/9/07, 12:48 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
In the Nishma Spark of the Week 5754-11, I wrote:

"...It, therefore, is most bizarre that of all the holidays of the Jewish calendar, the one that has been most influenced by the forces of the galut that surrounds us is Chanukah..."

(See http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-11.htm for the full article)

Chanukah celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over the Hellenists, the victory of Torah over the forces of assimilation. Is it not ironic, therefore, that the most assimilated of the Jewish holidays is Chanukah? Ever think about it? People who don't celebrate many of the major Torah holidays seem to get into the "Chanukah spirit." Do you think that has something to do with the external influences that suround this time? What about the way in which Chanukah is celebrated, a bit of external influence there as well would you not say? Let's go beyond the holiday. Is there anything more ironic than the fact that the "Jewish Olympics" are called the Maccabiah?

The Spark concerns these issues, but in a larger way opens a whole new discussion on assimilation. That is what Chanukah is about. Your comments?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

A New Approach to Modern Orthodoxy

Originally published 11/11/07, 6:04 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The latest Nishma Introspection (5768-1) is out and features an article by R' Dr. Michael Schweitzer entitled "A New Approach to Modern Orthodoxy." The article's objective is not to give definite answers to what ails Modern Orthodoxy but to open a fresh discussion on how to revitalize Modern Orthodoxy. The article is available on line at The Blog of Garnel Ironheart. We invite you to look at it and comment either here or there.

You are also invited to request a copy of the latest Introspection, which contains the print version of the article, by joining the Nishma mailing list. Click on the icon to the left to sign up for more Nishma, then just complete the on-line form.

The Year of Living Biblically

Originally published 10/8/07, 6:59 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Maclean's magazine featured an interview last week. with A. J. Jacobs. The book he wrote, "The Year of Living Biblically," is based upon the author's year of living according to the literal word of the Bible. His interview is available on line here.

I have not seen the book but I found the interview most interesting. I am still not sure how to respond. Obviously, this person's year of following the Bible literally does not really reflect Orthodox Judaism. It most likely was closer, in practice, to the Karaites or the Sadducees. Nonetheless, Mr. Jacobs' comments are still worth noting. I found myself torn in my reactions.

I would be most interested in your comments.

The New Dilemma of Freedom of Religion

Originally published 9/18/07, 11:05 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Someone just sent me an e-mail featuring some statements made by political leaders in Australia. There was praise, within this e-mail, for these statements -- and in many ways I shared this positive feeling towards these statements - they basically attacked Islamic fundamentalism, and declared that if someone wanted to live in Australia they had better accept the values of Australia. Of course, these values reflect secular humanism and generally provide for a tolerant society that will still be welcoming to most. Yet, there is still a reason for concern.

In the past few years, often in response to Islamic fundamentalism, there has been a reaction by various societies, declaring that for one to live within the society, one has to abide by the values of the society. This leads to encroachment on minorities, specifically in regard to religion, where concern develops that the religion is challenging the dominant values within the society. In my own mind, places such as France, Quebec and now Australia come to mind. In Ontario I just wrote an article in this regard concerning the fair funding debate that is a major issue within the province's present election campaign.
The problem is, that on one hand, I also share the concern that allowing any religion to present its values can lead to problems, including specific problems for the Jewish community. Yet placing restrictions on religious expression simply because this religion's view may challenge the values of the dominant group in society may cause other problems, including great problems for the Jewish community. The expulsion from Spain ultimately occurred because the Catholic leadership did not want a group within the country that presented values contrary to the dominant group.

So we now face a real dilemma. The dominant value structure in Secular Humanism, which does have greater values of tolerance than medieval Spain's Catholic Church, but the rhetoric is getting dangerously close. Yet, under the veil of freedom of religion, we do find expressions of values that indeed are challenging even to this tolerance. We have to work out not a practical, case by case, solution. We have to work out how to maintain this dominant value of freedom of religion, that has allowed the Jewish community to blossom in many places (the question of the problems this freedom has brought upon Torah within these communities, albeit that Torah has in many ways also flourished within this world -- thus prompting Rav Moshe to refer to the U.S. as a country of chesed -- is beyond the parameters of this post), while still limiting the expression of negativity that may also arise.