Earlier this week, Israeli authorities rounded up numerous Chareidim in Israel who are accusing of defrauding the State. In a classic case of identity fraud, it seems that the yeshivos were collecting monies for students who either did not attend the schools or were taking the monies allocated for the personal use of people who attend the yeshiva but have a policy not to take money from the State.
I don't know if the accusations are true or not. However, this episode has helped to illustrate several interesting points:
1. We Keep Our Priorities Straight -- Marty Bluke points out that this affair is being discussed on the Chareidi website. However, there the discussion isn't about whether or not the parties involved are guilty or whether we need to rethink the way we do things. The discussion there focuses on trying to find out who notified the authorities. In other words, it's not the fault of the thieves, it's the fault of the people who turned them in.
2. We Learn To Distinguish Between Important Issues and Issues of Lesser Importance: I find it highly telling that these same people who would look down at me for wearing a colored shirt, or working for a living, or for wearing a leather yarmulke, or for any of the other things that violate the chareidi lifestyle -- but yet don't even rise to the level of minhag or Rabbinic mitzvos, have no problem blithely violating the actual Torah commandment against theft.
Lord knows that I'm not perfect... and I don't expect Chareidim to be either. We're all human and we all make mistakes. But it's one thing when someone makes a one-time mistake and yet another when the violation is repeated and systemic. How someone who is repeatedly violating a Torah law can look down at someone who simply doesn't dress the same way or is otherwise acting in accordance with halacha is beyond me.
3. We're Can Keep the Big Picture In Sight: I am personally in favor of Torah study. I may have some quibbles with the way the kollel system is currently set up (ok, perhaps more than quibbles), but on a deeper level, I believe that there should be a kollel option for those who have the aptitude and desire.
But it has to be realized that the purpose of the kollel (or at least one of the purposes) has to be to educate people in the observance of the mitzvos. If the purpose of the learning doesn't include actual observance of the mitzvos, then what the heck is the point of the whole venture? To learn what the Torah wants while hypocritically acting the other way? I don't think so -- nor should any rational person. But if we support Torah learning with thievery what message does that send to the avreichim that are learning there -- especially in this day and age where many in the yeshiva world revere the Rosh Yeshiva himself and view his behavior as a model to emulate?
I don't have a problem with instutions that serve the community -- be they kollelim, tzedakah organizations, or the like. But the paramount thing is that these organizations have to be run above-board and with complete honesty. If we can't do that, not only do we risk further chillul HaShem, we also might begin to lose faith in our own institutions.
The Wolf
Showing posts with label chareidi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chareidi. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Frum People Don't Kiss or Hug Their Spouses...
... or at least that's what one couple wants their nearly teenage daughter to believe.
A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed. In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch. The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging. Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim." As the poster puts it:
The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them. And so she told her daughter. Her daughter's reaction:
So far, so good. Kid sees something that was meant to be private. Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing). Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.
But the story doesn't end there. When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different. In her words:
And sure enough, he does just this. In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:
and
The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong. These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc. Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.
So, what's the end result here?
1. Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:
a. She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy. Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.
b. She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.
2. The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts. Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple. But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.
3. By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility. By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution. IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage.
I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids. If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business. It's not how Eeees and I run ours. Our kids see us hug and kiss. They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not. Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship.
I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered. It's a perfectly natural parental reaction. Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child. Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever. At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.
We had this issue with one of our children. Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked. No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context. We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do. The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.
Children are naturally curious about the world. They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about. But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world. That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them. As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.
Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this: if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship. Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers. Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix
A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed. In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch. The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging. Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim." As the poster puts it:
Obviously I'll never know just how much she saw but she was in total shock that this couple were "behaving like chilonim" and she was nauseous over the whole thing. Needless to say, my dd is very sheltered and could not imagine that anyone Charedi would do something so disgusting!
The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them. And so she told her daughter. Her daughter's reaction:
She was not happy with that answer and of course, started to ask me about her father and myself. I didn't give her a straight answer but I did let her know that it's normal and natural.
So far, so good. Kid sees something that was meant to be private. Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing). Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.
But the story doesn't end there. When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different. In her words:
When DH found this out he was not a happy camper. He would rather have her think that the neighbors are pervs or something. Oy.
And sure enough, he does just this. In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:
She ran to tell my dh about it this morning before I woke up. He told her that it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder and that the only reason I said that it is done is because I didn't want to say bad things about the neighbors and that I didn't know what to say. She asked me if that's true and I said yes.
and
My husband says that the mere fact that she got such a shock from what she saw is enough of a reason to make sure she gets back on track and the only way to get her back to her equilibrium is to let her think that it's wrong. He says it's allowed by halacha to lie about this. I said that she'll eventually know I'm a liar and he said that the important thing here is not if I'm a liar or not - it's her state of mind.
The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong. These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc. Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.
So, what's the end result here?
1. Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:
a. She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy. Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.
b. She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.
2. The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts. Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple. But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.
3. By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility. By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution. IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage.
I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids. If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business. It's not how Eeees and I run ours. Our kids see us hug and kiss. They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not. Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship.
I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered. It's a perfectly natural parental reaction. Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child. Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever. At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.
We had this issue with one of our children. Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked. No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context. We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do. The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.
Children are naturally curious about the world. They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about. But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world. That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them. As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.
Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this: if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship. Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers. Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix
Friday, July 30, 2010
Maybe I'm Not Jewish?
Ha'aretz published an article today about Hillary Rubin, a 29-year-old Detroit native who was raised in a Conservative household made aliyah four year ago. Today she's a student who keeps Shabbos and kashrus -- and she's looking to get married. However, there seems to be a hangup -- the Rabbinate is asking for proof of her Jewishness. They want kesubos (marriage contracts) and death certificates going back four generations. This is an issue because most of her ancestors perished in the Holocaust. As such, the documents either no longer exist (the kesubos) or never existed in the first place (the death certificates). When she brought this to the attention of the Rabbinate, she was told that it's not their problem. She brought letters from four Conservative rabbis and a Chabad rabbi in Detroit attesting to her Jewishness. Not good enough. In the end, she's going to have to go to Cyprus for a civil ceremony.
If you've been paying attention at all, you're no doubt aware of the fact that the Rabbinate has been trying to take greater control of the "who is a Jew" question. They (and other groups around the world, such as the infamous EJF) have tried to take greater control of conversions, seeking to nullify conversions that don't meet their standards (even if they do meet halachic standards that have been used for centuries).
However, Rubin's case is different. She is not a convert. The article in Ha'aretz doesn't mention conversions at all. I'm guessing that none of her maternal ancestors (at least as far back as three or four generations) were converts (if I'm wrong, I'm willing to retract that). If so, what we're dealing with here is a case where the Rabbinate is now beginning to question the Jewishness of any person who doesn't come from an Orthodox background.
Not more than an hour ago (literally) a friend suggested that I make aliyah. He told me about tech jobs that are opening up there and that it is possible for a tech worker (such as myself) to make a decent living. But I have to wonder -- why should I even bother considering it?
My parents were not frum when they were married. As such, they did not have a kesubah. Furthermore, all my grandparents were born in New York. As such, their birth certificates and marriage certificates don't identify them as Jews. So, in the end, what proof do I have that I'm Jewish? Mind you, *I* know that I'm Jewish because I know my personal family history -- but the Rabbinate doesn't know that. Why should I make life difficult for myself and my kids -- where our very Jewishness is going to be questioned and probably cause troubles later in life?
You might make the argument that I'm already married and, hence, don't need to worry about marriage restrictions for myself. That's true, in and of itself. But I'm afraid the problems run far deeper than that.
Demographic studies show that the two largest growing population groups in Israel are Chareidim and Arabs. There is a good possibility that there will be a point when the Chareidim are the majority in Israel and fully control the government. When that happens, they'll have control over far more than simply marriages and conversions. What about citizenship? If I'm to move to Israel, what's to stop them from asking me for proof of my Jewishness on pain of being stripped of citizenship? What about burial? The last thing I would want to happen right after I shuffle off the mortal coil is to have a government tell my kids that I can't be buried where they want to bury me because I couldn't prove my Jewishness? And I would not be surprised if these issues were limited to marriage, citizenship and burial. Call me paranoid if you like, but I think that this has the potential to be a nightmare for every non-Orthodox Jew and every ba'al teshuva who might one day dream of living in Israel.
About six months ago, I wondered if I was truly Orthodox. Perhaps the better question I should be asking is if I'm even Jewish.
The Wolf
If you've been paying attention at all, you're no doubt aware of the fact that the Rabbinate has been trying to take greater control of the "who is a Jew" question. They (and other groups around the world, such as the infamous EJF) have tried to take greater control of conversions, seeking to nullify conversions that don't meet their standards (even if they do meet halachic standards that have been used for centuries).
However, Rubin's case is different. She is not a convert. The article in Ha'aretz doesn't mention conversions at all. I'm guessing that none of her maternal ancestors (at least as far back as three or four generations) were converts (if I'm wrong, I'm willing to retract that). If so, what we're dealing with here is a case where the Rabbinate is now beginning to question the Jewishness of any person who doesn't come from an Orthodox background.
Not more than an hour ago (literally) a friend suggested that I make aliyah. He told me about tech jobs that are opening up there and that it is possible for a tech worker (such as myself) to make a decent living. But I have to wonder -- why should I even bother considering it?
My parents were not frum when they were married. As such, they did not have a kesubah. Furthermore, all my grandparents were born in New York. As such, their birth certificates and marriage certificates don't identify them as Jews. So, in the end, what proof do I have that I'm Jewish? Mind you, *I* know that I'm Jewish because I know my personal family history -- but the Rabbinate doesn't know that. Why should I make life difficult for myself and my kids -- where our very Jewishness is going to be questioned and probably cause troubles later in life?
You might make the argument that I'm already married and, hence, don't need to worry about marriage restrictions for myself. That's true, in and of itself. But I'm afraid the problems run far deeper than that.
Demographic studies show that the two largest growing population groups in Israel are Chareidim and Arabs. There is a good possibility that there will be a point when the Chareidim are the majority in Israel and fully control the government. When that happens, they'll have control over far more than simply marriages and conversions. What about citizenship? If I'm to move to Israel, what's to stop them from asking me for proof of my Jewishness on pain of being stripped of citizenship? What about burial? The last thing I would want to happen right after I shuffle off the mortal coil is to have a government tell my kids that I can't be buried where they want to bury me because I couldn't prove my Jewishness? And I would not be surprised if these issues were limited to marriage, citizenship and burial. Call me paranoid if you like, but I think that this has the potential to be a nightmare for every non-Orthodox Jew and every ba'al teshuva who might one day dream of living in Israel.
About six months ago, I wondered if I was truly Orthodox. Perhaps the better question I should be asking is if I'm even Jewish.
The Wolf
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
On The Quality of Leadership... Or Lack Thereof
You know you've hit a sore point when you make a perfectly reasonable comment on Matzav.com and they don't put it up. :)
Shmuel Miskin put up a "rant" complaining about two things:
1. How the media portray chareidim as "hooligans" because of the hafganot (disturbances/rioting) in Israel. He makes the case that the people doing this are doing it against the wishes of the gedolim and hence, are not chareidi.
I'm not sure I agree with this point, but it's fine... I can understand what he's saying and it's not totally unreasonable. It's the second point he made that I commented on. Here's Rabbi Miskin's comment verbatim:
Here's my comment that was not approved by Matzav.com.
Rabbi Miskin,
Leadership is a very funny quality. I can be great at math regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I can be great at learning Gemara regardless of anyone else’s opinion on it. And so on.
Leadership, on the other hand, depends in large part on the opinion and feelings of the people being led. If theyfeed feel that their leadership is not providing direction and, well… leading, then it could reasonably be argued that the leadership being provided is lacking.
When people “call out” their leaders (be they religious leaders, political leaders, etc.) it is because they feel that their leaders are not providing leadership. That, in and of itself, lends questions to the quality of the leadership.
The Wolf
Shmuel Miskin put up a "rant" complaining about two things:
1. How the media portray chareidim as "hooligans" because of the hafganot (disturbances/rioting) in Israel. He makes the case that the people doing this are doing it against the wishes of the gedolim and hence, are not chareidi.
I'm not sure I agree with this point, but it's fine... I can understand what he's saying and it's not totally unreasonable. It's the second point he made that I commented on. Here's Rabbi Miskin's comment verbatim:
I’ve read numerous comments made by people online publically questioning why “gedolim haven’t condemned the violence.”
Firstly, the statement is not true. As mentioned, Rav Shternbuch has repeatedly condemned violence. Secondly, as I saw reported here on Matzav.com, the Mirrer rosh yeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, clearly told his talmidim to stay far away from the hafganos.
But putting that aside, who are we to publically call out gedolei Torah? Who are we to tell the gedolim what they should or shouldn’t publically protest? Such statements are a bizayon haTorah. Our gedolim, our einei ha’eidah, have special yiras Shomayim and special siyata diShmaya. They know when and how to protest or condemn something when the time is right. It takes outright chutzpah for online chareidi writers to question our gedolim and rabbonim, criticizing them, as if the writers are even in the same spiritual stratosphere as these leaders. What a bizayon.Here's my comment that was not approved by Matzav.com.
Rabbi Miskin,
Leadership is a very funny quality. I can be great at math regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I can be great at learning Gemara regardless of anyone else’s opinion on it. And so on.
Leadership, on the other hand, depends in large part on the opinion and feelings of the people being led. If they
When people “call out” their leaders (be they religious leaders, political leaders, etc.) it is because they feel that their leaders are not providing leadership. That, in and of itself, lends questions to the quality of the leadership.
The Wolf
Thursday, May 13, 2010
And The Hits (Literally!) Continue
First, it was a woman being beaten up for not moving to the back of a bus in Israel. A few months ago, a girl was grabbed, thrown to the ground and kicked in Beit Shemesh for supposed tznius violations (the post describes them as "properly dressed"). Now, we have a story of a woman who was beaten up in Beersheba for the sin of... having worn tefillin.
As per the article:
According to the release, the man asked Raz twice if the imprints were from tefillin. When she told him they were, he began to kick and strangle her while screaming “women are an abomination.” Raz, who practices Conservative Judaism, reportedly broke free from the man and boarded her bus.
OK, so perhaps the guy was a loon. If he's shouting "women are an abomination," I'll probably even grant that perhaps he doesn't have all his marbles. But that's not really the issue here.
The problem is that it's easy to shrug off an isolated incident as the workings of a "lone wolf" or a "madman." The problem is that this is beginning to happen more and more frequently. And when it begins to happen more and more frequently, it's much harder to describe the acts as those of the fringe or madmen.
Personally, I don't care if it's absolutely forbidden for a woman to wear tefillin or not -- there's still absolutely no justification for anyone -- man or woman -- to physically attack her for doing so. It just sickens me that this is becoming a regular feature of some segments of chareidi society in Israel.
And, what's worse, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it's all based on misogyny. Forget the guy's comment about women being an abomination for a moment -- let me ask you this question. Do you think he would have attacked her if she were eating a ham and cheese sandwich? Do you think he would have tried to strangle her if she were eating chametz on Pesach? Do you think he would have even noticed, let alone cared if she finished eating and failed to bentch? Or if she failed to have a mezuzah on her door? Personally, my belief is that he would not have cared at all. But let her show signs of having put on tefillin? Or daven at the Kosel? Oh, no! We can't allow that! For that we have to beat them. Violate a mitzvah from the Torah? Not a big deal. Put on tefillin? Daven at the Kosel? Why that's an even *worse* violation!
I'm telling you all, there are times when my faith in Judaism is shaken... and it's incidents like this that do it.
The Wolf
As per the article:
According to the release, the man asked Raz twice if the imprints were from tefillin. When she told him they were, he began to kick and strangle her while screaming “women are an abomination.” Raz, who practices Conservative Judaism, reportedly broke free from the man and boarded her bus.
OK, so perhaps the guy was a loon. If he's shouting "women are an abomination," I'll probably even grant that perhaps he doesn't have all his marbles. But that's not really the issue here.
The problem is that it's easy to shrug off an isolated incident as the workings of a "lone wolf" or a "madman." The problem is that this is beginning to happen more and more frequently. And when it begins to happen more and more frequently, it's much harder to describe the acts as those of the fringe or madmen.
Personally, I don't care if it's absolutely forbidden for a woman to wear tefillin or not -- there's still absolutely no justification for anyone -- man or woman -- to physically attack her for doing so. It just sickens me that this is becoming a regular feature of some segments of chareidi society in Israel.
And, what's worse, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it's all based on misogyny. Forget the guy's comment about women being an abomination for a moment -- let me ask you this question. Do you think he would have attacked her if she were eating a ham and cheese sandwich? Do you think he would have tried to strangle her if she were eating chametz on Pesach? Do you think he would have even noticed, let alone cared if she finished eating and failed to bentch? Or if she failed to have a mezuzah on her door? Personally, my belief is that he would not have cared at all. But let her show signs of having put on tefillin? Or daven at the Kosel? Oh, no! We can't allow that! For that we have to beat them. Violate a mitzvah from the Torah? Not a big deal. Put on tefillin? Daven at the Kosel? Why that's an even *worse* violation!
I'm telling you all, there are times when my faith in Judaism is shaken... and it's incidents like this that do it.
The Wolf
Friday, April 09, 2010
MK Gafni on Poverty: Going To Work Solves Nothing; That's All Nonsense
A rather incredible article appeared on the Dei'ah veDibur site this week entitled Bank of Israel: Entering Workforce Does Not Ensure Escape from Poverty. The article tries to make the case that, for chareidim in Israel, leaving welfare is a bad thing and that families that do leave welfare do not end up better off financially.
The article quotes MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (the Knesset Finance Committee Chairman) who states:
"The country is lying to its citizens. Once again it has been shown that leaving the ranks of welfare recipients and joining the job market does not change the situation and people who work very hard for their living are unable to make ends meet."
He also goes on to say (emphasis mine):
"Emerging from the cycle of poverty requires an ability to get accepted to one of the positions that brings in tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels per month. Going to work solves nothing; that's all nonsense. In the State of Israel, today someone who wants to get out of the cycle of poverty has to network with the elites and the power centers just to get a decent salary that will really enable him to make a respectable living."
In other words, according to Rabbi Gafni, working is worthless. We're all better off just increasing welfare payments to people so that they can sustain themselves. I don't know if his comment that you need "tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels" of shekels per month to get out of poverty is accurate (it sounds high to me), but let's say, for the moment, that he's correct (given chareidi family sizes). Assuming a shekel is worth about a quarter (it's actually a bit more right now), that's the equivalent of saying that you need "twenty five hundreds to twenty five thousands dollars per month" to escape poverty. Of course, jobs paying twenty five grand a month are scarce... I don't have one, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S. But what Rabbi Gafni is missing (or, IMHO, purposely avoiding) is that people on welfare, when they enter the workforce, generally start by talking entry-level jobs that are meant for unskilled workers. As their skills and experience increase, workers will be able to begin commanding higher salaries. When I started working, I was earning very, very little. However, now that I've been working for quite a few years and have invested in some training and education, I now command a much higher salary. Had I said, twenty years ago, that it doesn't pay to work because I can't get my present salary, I would have been an idiot. Very few people get to start at the top... most of us have to work our way up through the ranks, just like everyone else. That means you "pay your dues" by working for a while at low wages and then, with hard work, experience and a bit of Siyata D'Shmaya (Divine Providence), you will begin to earn better wages.
Of course, all this is predicated on one assumption -- that the person is employable and has job skills that he can bring to the market. Rabbi Gafni makes the following observation concerning the ability to earn a salary (again, emphasis mine):
"The problem is especially acute in the chareidi public. The state does not recognize the years of yeshiva and seminary study as it recognizes the years of study of its secular citizens. As a result both husband and wife who work earn paltry salaries, and are unable to extract the family from the cycle of poverty. On the other hand there are people earning as much as an entire neighborhood."
And here, Rabbi Gafni has the solution to the problem staring him in the face and he willfully chooses to ignore it. The problem, very simply, is education. When people are not educated with any skills (other than being a rebbe/teacher), there is little chance that they will be able to command a "good salary" when they enter the workforce. In order to command a "good salary," a worker has to be able to show that s/he will add at least that much value to the enterprise and have skills that differentiate him/herself from the other people seeking employment. Almost anyone off the street can answer a phone or man a cash register -- and so those jobs pay very little. On the other hand, since not everyone can hold the job of a skilled worker (be it computer programmer, plumber, doctor, etc.), people in those professions earn more.
In the ultimate of ironies, Rabbi Gafni even brings an example of a high earner and, instead of recognizing why the person has a high salary, he engages in petty envy. He states (once more, emphasis mine):
"We considered the possibility of setting up a ministerial committee to discuss the inconceivable wage gaps that exist in this country. We need a far-reaching change and a totally new attitude. There are enormous class gaps in this country that will turn into an existential social problem. The salary the CEO of Bank Mizrachi receives is enough to sustain a whole street in Bnei Brak. These class disparities have led to very difficult situations throughout history in all places, and it is imperative that the government comes to its senses on time."
I don't know who the CEO of Bank Mizrachi is, and I certainly don't know his salary or whether or not it can really sustain a street in Bnei Brak. But I do know this: he probably holds an MBA and/or an advanced degree in finance. He probably didn't walk in off the street on his first day of work and say "I want to be the CEO." He probably spent years working at less prestigious jobs, building up his experience. He probably put in a lot of hours over the years and earned the respect of his peers in the banking industry. He probably spent quite a bit of time networking professionally. In other words, the CEO of Bank Mizrachi earns a large salary because he has worked himself up to that point, not because it was magically given to him.
Rabbi Gafni looks at the CEO of Bank Mizrachi and purposely ignores the very reason for his success. Instead of crediting his education, skill and hard work, he says that you have to "network with the elites and the power centers" to get a decent job. As if anyone could get a CEO job (or any job that requires skills) just simply by knowing an "elite" or someone in a "power center." He purposely (IMHO) ignores the importance of education and job skills and says that it's better to simply sit back, give up on any chance for developing job skills and get a welfare check from the government.
I find it utterly ironic that Rabbi Gafni is complaining about poverty in the chareidi community when it's attitudes like his that are the chief reason for it. When school systems are purposely designed NOT to teach any job skills and the society is set up to actively discourage getting an education that will lead to such skills, there can be little doubt that the outcome will be continued poverty. In short, Rabbi Gafni is like someone who ensures that there are no firefighters and then complains when his house burns down and no one was there to put out the fire.
The Wolf
The article quotes MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (the Knesset Finance Committee Chairman) who states:
"The country is lying to its citizens. Once again it has been shown that leaving the ranks of welfare recipients and joining the job market does not change the situation and people who work very hard for their living are unable to make ends meet."
He also goes on to say (emphasis mine):
"Emerging from the cycle of poverty requires an ability to get accepted to one of the positions that brings in tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels per month. Going to work solves nothing; that's all nonsense. In the State of Israel, today someone who wants to get out of the cycle of poverty has to network with the elites and the power centers just to get a decent salary that will really enable him to make a respectable living."
In other words, according to Rabbi Gafni, working is worthless. We're all better off just increasing welfare payments to people so that they can sustain themselves. I don't know if his comment that you need "tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels" of shekels per month to get out of poverty is accurate (it sounds high to me), but let's say, for the moment, that he's correct (given chareidi family sizes). Assuming a shekel is worth about a quarter (it's actually a bit more right now), that's the equivalent of saying that you need "twenty five hundreds to twenty five thousands dollars per month" to escape poverty. Of course, jobs paying twenty five grand a month are scarce... I don't have one, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S. But what Rabbi Gafni is missing (or, IMHO, purposely avoiding) is that people on welfare, when they enter the workforce, generally start by talking entry-level jobs that are meant for unskilled workers. As their skills and experience increase, workers will be able to begin commanding higher salaries. When I started working, I was earning very, very little. However, now that I've been working for quite a few years and have invested in some training and education, I now command a much higher salary. Had I said, twenty years ago, that it doesn't pay to work because I can't get my present salary, I would have been an idiot. Very few people get to start at the top... most of us have to work our way up through the ranks, just like everyone else. That means you "pay your dues" by working for a while at low wages and then, with hard work, experience and a bit of Siyata D'Shmaya (Divine Providence), you will begin to earn better wages.
Of course, all this is predicated on one assumption -- that the person is employable and has job skills that he can bring to the market. Rabbi Gafni makes the following observation concerning the ability to earn a salary (again, emphasis mine):
"The problem is especially acute in the chareidi public. The state does not recognize the years of yeshiva and seminary study as it recognizes the years of study of its secular citizens. As a result both husband and wife who work earn paltry salaries, and are unable to extract the family from the cycle of poverty. On the other hand there are people earning as much as an entire neighborhood."
And here, Rabbi Gafni has the solution to the problem staring him in the face and he willfully chooses to ignore it. The problem, very simply, is education. When people are not educated with any skills (other than being a rebbe/teacher), there is little chance that they will be able to command a "good salary" when they enter the workforce. In order to command a "good salary," a worker has to be able to show that s/he will add at least that much value to the enterprise and have skills that differentiate him/herself from the other people seeking employment. Almost anyone off the street can answer a phone or man a cash register -- and so those jobs pay very little. On the other hand, since not everyone can hold the job of a skilled worker (be it computer programmer, plumber, doctor, etc.), people in those professions earn more.
In the ultimate of ironies, Rabbi Gafni even brings an example of a high earner and, instead of recognizing why the person has a high salary, he engages in petty envy. He states (once more, emphasis mine):
"We considered the possibility of setting up a ministerial committee to discuss the inconceivable wage gaps that exist in this country. We need a far-reaching change and a totally new attitude. There are enormous class gaps in this country that will turn into an existential social problem. The salary the CEO of Bank Mizrachi receives is enough to sustain a whole street in Bnei Brak. These class disparities have led to very difficult situations throughout history in all places, and it is imperative that the government comes to its senses on time."
I don't know who the CEO of Bank Mizrachi is, and I certainly don't know his salary or whether or not it can really sustain a street in Bnei Brak. But I do know this: he probably holds an MBA and/or an advanced degree in finance. He probably didn't walk in off the street on his first day of work and say "I want to be the CEO." He probably spent years working at less prestigious jobs, building up his experience. He probably put in a lot of hours over the years and earned the respect of his peers in the banking industry. He probably spent quite a bit of time networking professionally. In other words, the CEO of Bank Mizrachi earns a large salary because he has worked himself up to that point, not because it was magically given to him.
Rabbi Gafni looks at the CEO of Bank Mizrachi and purposely ignores the very reason for his success. Instead of crediting his education, skill and hard work, he says that you have to "network with the elites and the power centers" to get a decent job. As if anyone could get a CEO job (or any job that requires skills) just simply by knowing an "elite" or someone in a "power center." He purposely (IMHO) ignores the importance of education and job skills and says that it's better to simply sit back, give up on any chance for developing job skills and get a welfare check from the government.
I find it utterly ironic that Rabbi Gafni is complaining about poverty in the chareidi community when it's attitudes like his that are the chief reason for it. When school systems are purposely designed NOT to teach any job skills and the society is set up to actively discourage getting an education that will lead to such skills, there can be little doubt that the outcome will be continued poverty. In short, Rabbi Gafni is like someone who ensures that there are no firefighters and then complains when his house burns down and no one was there to put out the fire.
The Wolf
Thursday, March 18, 2010
You Canna Change The Laws of Physics... er, Economics.
An interesting article appeared on Yeshiva World News today concerning the problem of prospective grooms asking for excessive amounts of money to marry. Many of the young men in Israel who are learning in yeshivos are demanding that their prospective fathers-in-law to buy them an apartment before they will agree to a marriage.
This, of course, leads to some problems. Why? Let's tick off the reasons:
1. Most chareidi families in Israel (which is the segment of the population that we're talking about here) have large families. Since, on average, half of those children are daughters, most families are looking at buying at least three apartments (if not more) for their prospective sons-in-law.
2. Most of these families are barely squeaking by financially. Most chareidi families have lots of kids and spend years paying for private education for those kids, In addition, since secular learning is, for the most part, verboten, many of the ones who are employed are earning wages that are typically found in the unskilled labor market. Yes, there are some who are making it financially -- but those are the exceptions, not the norm.
3. They have educated their daughters that the only "acceptable" choice for a husband is someone who is going to sit and learn for an indefinite time into their marriage. Anything else is substandard and not befitting for a Jewish girl. This message is pounded into their heads by their teachers from the time they are old enough to even think of marriage.
As anyone who has studied a basic economics course knows, there are the concepts known as supply and demand. When there is excess supply and/or little demand for any particular item, the price of the item falls. Likewise, when supply is scarce and/or demand is high, the price of the item will rise. What has happened, very simply, is that over the last thirty years or so, we've increased the demand of a learning groom to the point where, once free market forces take effect, there is a rise in general prices -- not only on the best learners, but even those of lesser capability. As a result, even boys who aren't the best learners are demanding the purchase of an apartment. Lord alone knows what the true best learners* are asking for.
RavEliyashiv Kanievsky recently addressed the matter. As the YWN report says:
Rav Chaim Shlita used the opportunity to discuss the trend with young chasanim requesting an apartment before wedding arrangements are even finalized, the weekly BaKehilla reports. The Rav explained that he receives telephone calls from mothers of young girls, explaining they want an apartment and as a result, there cannot be a shidduch since they simply cannot accommodate.
“It has crossed acceptable boundaries. Today, every bachur who learns four or five years believes he has attained a level of worth higher than his father-in-law and therefore, he is entitled to an apartment. We must fight this trend. A fast day must be declared to stop this epidemic”.
The Rav called on roshei yeshiva to combat this trend and to use their influence with talmidim to begin turning this around. He added that at most, one may request half of the cost of an apartment from each side, but that is the limit.
It's good that RavEliyashiv Kanievsky is bringing attention to this situation. But a fast is not going to solve the problem. Nor will imposing a price cap of half an apartment. As most people know, price caps generally do not work -- especially in environments where there is no enforcement mechanism. I don't believe that grooms will continue to ask for less. On the contrary, they will continue to ask for more -- until they reach the point where demand is going to fall because not enough people will be able to afford the price. I believe we may be approaching that point very soon. At some point, the fathers are going to rebel and not pay -- if not from anger then from the sheer inability to pay. When that happens, the market will collapse.
Ultimately, it may take Adam Smith's invisible hand to undo the distortions in the dowry market that chareidi society has created over the last thirty years.
The Wolf
* Of course, one could make the argument that the true best learners might also be the best ba'al midos and know what their prospective in-laws can afford. But that's another story for another time.
This, of course, leads to some problems. Why? Let's tick off the reasons:
1. Most chareidi families in Israel (which is the segment of the population that we're talking about here) have large families. Since, on average, half of those children are daughters, most families are looking at buying at least three apartments (if not more) for their prospective sons-in-law.
2. Most of these families are barely squeaking by financially. Most chareidi families have lots of kids and spend years paying for private education for those kids, In addition, since secular learning is, for the most part, verboten, many of the ones who are employed are earning wages that are typically found in the unskilled labor market. Yes, there are some who are making it financially -- but those are the exceptions, not the norm.
3. They have educated their daughters that the only "acceptable" choice for a husband is someone who is going to sit and learn for an indefinite time into their marriage. Anything else is substandard and not befitting for a Jewish girl. This message is pounded into their heads by their teachers from the time they are old enough to even think of marriage.
As anyone who has studied a basic economics course knows, there are the concepts known as supply and demand. When there is excess supply and/or little demand for any particular item, the price of the item falls. Likewise, when supply is scarce and/or demand is high, the price of the item will rise. What has happened, very simply, is that over the last thirty years or so, we've increased the demand of a learning groom to the point where, once free market forces take effect, there is a rise in general prices -- not only on the best learners, but even those of lesser capability. As a result, even boys who aren't the best learners are demanding the purchase of an apartment. Lord alone knows what the true best learners* are asking for.
Rav
Rav Chaim Shlita used the opportunity to discuss the trend with young chasanim requesting an apartment before wedding arrangements are even finalized, the weekly BaKehilla reports. The Rav explained that he receives telephone calls from mothers of young girls, explaining they want an apartment and as a result, there cannot be a shidduch since they simply cannot accommodate.
“It has crossed acceptable boundaries. Today, every bachur who learns four or five years believes he has attained a level of worth higher than his father-in-law and therefore, he is entitled to an apartment. We must fight this trend. A fast day must be declared to stop this epidemic”.
The Rav called on roshei yeshiva to combat this trend and to use their influence with talmidim to begin turning this around. He added that at most, one may request half of the cost of an apartment from each side, but that is the limit.
It's good that Rav
Ultimately, it may take Adam Smith's invisible hand to undo the distortions in the dowry market that chareidi society has created over the last thirty years.
The Wolf
* Of course, one could make the argument that the true best learners might also be the best ba'al midos and know what their prospective in-laws can afford. But that's another story for another time.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tznius Lunacy Abounds
From the tznius craziness files this week:
Don't Sing So Well...
A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.
So, what happened?
my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.
A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?
(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing
Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:
Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.
and (emphasis added)
Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.
From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.
Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."
Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.
The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.
The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood
Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”
Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?
Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.
The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:
There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C
Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder
And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.
I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.
The Wolf
UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.
Don't Sing So Well...
A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.
So, what happened?
my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.
A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?
(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing
Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:
Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.
and (emphasis added)
Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.
From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.
Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."
Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.
The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.
The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood
Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”
Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?
Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.
The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:
There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C
Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder
And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.
I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.
The Wolf
UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Compuphobia
I'm sure by now, many of you have seen (or at least heard of) the Rosh Yeshiva in Israel who is so against computers that he and members of his yeshiva engaged in a "computer smashing ceremony."
Now, I'll grant you that this Rosh Yeshiva seems to be very extreme in his beliefs and they don't reflect the beliefs about computers in the Orthodox world or even in the chareidi/yeshivish world. But nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that there are extremists out there who are always ready to shout "chadash assur min HaTorah" (that which is new* is forbidden by the Torah) about anything new innovation that might impact how Jews live their religious lives. Another example of this that comes to mind is a post from Hirhurim back in 2006. A new book was brought to R. Student's attention which had the following haskama (approbation):
However, the novelty is intensified in that you have completed this entire endeavor without the counterfeit aid (siyu'a she-ein bo mamash) of machines that are being innovated constantly (ha-mitchadeshim la-bekarim), like the invention of the "computer" and the like. For anyone who touches one of them is touching the apple of the eye of the Torah! For the Torah cannot being acquired through the pressing of the finger on a button, rather through strenuous labor that literally brings one close to death! And I declare that the difference between the such labor and the workings of the computer is like the difference between machine matzah and hand-made matzah, and those who understand will comprehend (veha-meiven yavin).
I wonder what the rav would have to say about the printing press or modern typographical innovations. I find it highly interesting that the rav who gave this hashkama objects to a person compiling a sefer by using a computer, but would (probably) have no objections to having sefarim printed rather than hand-written, or learning by the light of a nice electric bulb rather than by the light of a flickering candle as our ancestors did for thousands of years. And, of course, I would imagine that if he had to go somewhere outside of walking distance for a mitzvah, he would probably take a car or bus and not go through the "strenuous labor" of going via horse, mule or some other ancient method. (Side question: If you use a modern lighter to light your oven for matzah baking rather than using flint-and-steel, is that the equivilant of eating machine matzah?)
That aside, I find one other aspect of the computer-smashing ceremony highly instructive. According to the person who uploaded the video to YouTube, the computer was used for the purpose of earning a living. In other words, the guy who owned it was a "working" person who decided to stop. A yeshiva, geared towards ba'alei teshuva, is presumably encouraging those ba'alei teshuva to stop working and learn full time. I'm not saying that a ba'al teshiva should be prevented from learning full time if he can afford to and is willing/able to become a future leader (i.e. the same criteria I would use for the "FFB" crowd), but there is something important to consider. Such people (especially in Israel) are very valuable -- people who are frum, educated (secularly) and with marketable job skills (which he presumably has since he had a job). With an ever increasing chunk of Israeli frum society being made up of chareidim who, by and large (although exceptions certainly exist), are NOT educated secularly and do NOT have marketable job skills, I would think that unless a ba'al teshuva with such skills in the chareidi world would be extremely valuable in being able to help support the community, especially in such troubling economic times. I would think that to have him learn full-time (rather than work), his potential value as a leader would have to be extraordinarily high, considering the value that is being given up to have him learn full time. Perhaps that's the case here -- we don't have enough information to judge -- but I would think that the odds are against it. If the former laptop owner in question were truly a prodigy, he'd probably be in a mainstream yeshiva.
The Wolf
* The saying actually has halachic significance. It really refers to new grain which grows in Israel which is forbidden for use before the Omer sacrifice which was brought on the second day of Passover. Such new grain was called "chadash" (new) and, unlike old grain ("yoshon") could not be used before the sacrifice. The Chasam Sofer, in his fight against the emerging Reform movement applied the statement to refer not to new grain, but to new ideas and concepts in Judaism.
UPDATE (2:40pm EST): According to VIN, the computer owner is still working. He is a photographer who used the computer to develop his (presumably digital) photographs. Now he's going to go back to using film and developing the pictures traditionally. Knowing what I know about how much more efficient digital photography is over film, I think the guy's nuts or the whole story is a bit too fishy. Or, perhaps, he's a film purist... but those are few and far between, and I find it odd that he'd be using a digital camera up until now and then revert to film. Most film purists never switched to digital in the first place.
The Wolf
Now, I'll grant you that this Rosh Yeshiva seems to be very extreme in his beliefs and they don't reflect the beliefs about computers in the Orthodox world or even in the chareidi/yeshivish world. But nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that there are extremists out there who are always ready to shout "chadash assur min HaTorah" (that which is new* is forbidden by the Torah) about anything new innovation that might impact how Jews live their religious lives. Another example of this that comes to mind is a post from Hirhurim back in 2006. A new book was brought to R. Student's attention which had the following haskama (approbation):
However, the novelty is intensified in that you have completed this entire endeavor without the counterfeit aid (siyu'a she-ein bo mamash) of machines that are being innovated constantly (ha-mitchadeshim la-bekarim), like the invention of the "computer" and the like. For anyone who touches one of them is touching the apple of the eye of the Torah! For the Torah cannot being acquired through the pressing of the finger on a button, rather through strenuous labor that literally brings one close to death! And I declare that the difference between the such labor and the workings of the computer is like the difference between machine matzah and hand-made matzah, and those who understand will comprehend (veha-meiven yavin).
I wonder what the rav would have to say about the printing press or modern typographical innovations. I find it highly interesting that the rav who gave this hashkama objects to a person compiling a sefer by using a computer, but would (probably) have no objections to having sefarim printed rather than hand-written, or learning by the light of a nice electric bulb rather than by the light of a flickering candle as our ancestors did for thousands of years. And, of course, I would imagine that if he had to go somewhere outside of walking distance for a mitzvah, he would probably take a car or bus and not go through the "strenuous labor" of going via horse, mule or some other ancient method. (Side question: If you use a modern lighter to light your oven for matzah baking rather than using flint-and-steel, is that the equivilant of eating machine matzah?)
That aside, I find one other aspect of the computer-smashing ceremony highly instructive. According to the person who uploaded the video to YouTube, the computer was used for the purpose of earning a living. In other words, the guy who owned it was a "working" person who decided to stop. A yeshiva, geared towards ba'alei teshuva, is presumably encouraging those ba'alei teshuva to stop working and learn full time. I'm not saying that a ba'al teshiva should be prevented from learning full time if he can afford to and is willing/able to become a future leader (i.e. the same criteria I would use for the "FFB" crowd), but there is something important to consider. Such people (especially in Israel) are very valuable -- people who are frum, educated (secularly) and with marketable job skills (which he presumably has since he had a job). With an ever increasing chunk of Israeli frum society being made up of chareidim who, by and large (although exceptions certainly exist), are NOT educated secularly and do NOT have marketable job skills, I would think that unless a ba'al teshuva with such skills in the chareidi world would be extremely valuable in being able to help support the community, especially in such troubling economic times. I would think that to have him learn full-time (rather than work), his potential value as a leader would have to be extraordinarily high, considering the value that is being given up to have him learn full time. Perhaps that's the case here -- we don't have enough information to judge -- but I would think that the odds are against it. If the former laptop owner in question were truly a prodigy, he'd probably be in a mainstream yeshiva.
The Wolf
* The saying actually has halachic significance. It really refers to new grain which grows in Israel which is forbidden for use before the Omer sacrifice which was brought on the second day of Passover. Such new grain was called "chadash" (new) and, unlike old grain ("yoshon") could not be used before the sacrifice. The Chasam Sofer, in his fight against the emerging Reform movement applied the statement to refer not to new grain, but to new ideas and concepts in Judaism.
UPDATE (2:40pm EST): According to VIN, the computer owner is still working. He is a photographer who used the computer to develop his (presumably digital) photographs. Now he's going to go back to using film and developing the pictures traditionally. Knowing what I know about how much more efficient digital photography is over film, I think the guy's nuts or the whole story is a bit too fishy. Or, perhaps, he's a film purist... but those are few and far between, and I find it odd that he'd be using a digital camera up until now and then revert to film. Most film purists never switched to digital in the first place.
The Wolf
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Once Again, Banning Is Not The Way To Go...
YWN is reporting that teachers/administrators in Israel are being called to meetings to learn how to deal with students who come from homes where the Internet is available. The report states:
According to the latest HaMevaser report on the Internet concerns among Gedolei Yisrael Shlita, the organization of the nation’s seminaries are planning a kinos this coming Sunday to address the pressing matter. Principals of Chinuch Atzmai affiliated mosdos are also expected to convene in the near future to address the Internet problem.
Rabbonim have indicated they will not permit talmidim in mosdos if they come from homes with Internet connectivity. The same holds true for children of people who own, operate, or maintain an affiliation with chareidi websites, which have already been ordered shut, resulting in partial compliance.
I think that there is a frighteningly large potential for this type of ban to backfire that I wonder if the gedolim are truly analyzing the potential risks/rewards of their ban.
For a community that is experiencing massive parnassah problems (more so than the world at large), the decision to order the closure of websites that employ chareidim only exacerbates the problem. Now, people who were previously employed must go out and find other jobs -- probably in environments that are not as understanding of their social and religious needs as the chareidi websites were.
A person who cannot access the Internet will probably find it harder to find a job. I don't know what the situation in Israel is like, but when I need to find a job, the Internet is the first place I go to. I would be highly surprised to find that there weren't Israeli equivilents (or branches of) Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and the like. Again, in a community where there is a large degree of poverty, we should be making it *easier* for those who are looking for jobs to find them, not harder.
By closing chareidi websites, people who used to get their news from "clean" sources will now have to go sources that are more likely to present the news in ways that the gedolim wouldn't approve of. Just to give an example... imagine that the gedolim ordered (and had the power to enforce) the closure of YWN, VIN and Matzav. What would happen? People would turn to FailedMessiah and OUJ and other sources for their news. Regardless of whether what those sites publish is true or false, I'm sure the gedolim wouldn't want people to go there for their news. The same applies to the chareidi websites -- by closing the "good" ones, they're only pushing people to ones where more salacious news will be reported. I believe this is the exact opposite of what the gedolim intended.
I also find it hard to believe that the ban is going to change the behavior of very many people. Those who were already listening to the gedolim long ago abandoned their Internet connections. Those that were already disregarding the gedolim in this regard will continue to do so. All that's going to change is that those who were accessing the Internet openly will now do so clandestinely. I think the last thing we need to be doing is setting up a situation where parents will be showing their kids that dishonesty is acceptable.* The gedolim certainly don't want to set up situations where kids will learn that it's okay to pay lip service to the words of the gedolim while secretly disobeying them behind their backs.
Then there is the issue of what will happen when a parent is caught with an internet connection. I have long been a proponent of the idea that you don't punish kids for their parents' sins. I said it with regard to Neturei Karta and I am willing to repeat it here -- unless the sin of the parent causes the kid to become a threat to the school or other students, you deal solely with the parent and not the kid. Yes, some might make the argument that the kid might see something on the Internet and repeat it to his/her classmates, etc. Hogwash. Firstly, the school can easily make a rule that *students* are not allowed to access the Internet and punish them for breaking it. Secondly, if you're going to punish the kid because he might pick up something, you can say the same thing about relatives/friends of the kids. Will you ban a kid from school because he has friends in his neighborhood with an Internet connection? Perhaps he might see something at his friend's house. What if his cousin has a TV? Maybe we should kick him out because his cousin might tell him a joke he heard on a Dick Van Dyke rerun that might make it back to the school? In other words, if you're going to kick a kid out of school because he might have secondhand access to material that you consider objectionable, then you have to extend the ban (and penalty of expulsion) quite a bit further than a parent with Internet access.
The worst part of all this is that the gedolim don't seem to realize that the battle is already lost. I can only believe that there are a significant number of chareidim in 2010 that still have Internet connectivity in their homes -- if it were a small minority, then there wouldn't be a need for such a strong public measure. If there are still a significant number of chareidim who are not willing to abandon the Internet after several years of decrees by the gedolim, then I am forced to conclude that the Internet is here to stay -- even among the chareidim.
Imagine living in a society where some people keep fierce guard dogs. The dogs are there partly as pets, but also partly for the utilitarian purpose of protecting the home from theives and other dangers. Of course, not every family has, or needs a dog. Some families may not have anything worth stealing -- and so they don't need a guard dog. Sadly, every so often, a guard dog may attack and injure a family member -- but yet a significant number of the community decide that the rewards of having the dogs around outweigh the risks. The mayor of the town, who is usually well-respected, starts speaking to people about the dangers of having the dogs around. Surely, he tells the people, you can get by without the dogs. So, some people get rid of the dogs while a significant number of them retain the dogs. Some start looking for ways to hide the dogs. Meanwhile, the families that had dogs but got rid of them begin suffering as thieves begin targeting their houses.
As time goes on, the mayor's opposition to the dogs grows. Anytime a child is taken to the hospital because of a dog bite, he takes the opportunity to hold a press conference about how badly the dogs need to go and how big a menace they are to the community. And yet, while some people heed his advice, others find the dogs too valuable to the functioning of their households to give them up. Finally, the mayor issues a law banning the dogs outright. Yet, despite that, there are still dogs in the community. Those that were inclined to heed the mayor already got rid of their dogs. Those that didn't, didn't. And so, even though the dogs are hidden, some people still managed to get attacked by dogs. Usually, it's in the dog-owning families, but occasionally, someone from a non-dog family might be attacked as well. And, of course, the thieves continue to strike because there are fewer guard dogs.
What's the next course of action to take?
The ideal course of action would be to understand that the dogs are necessary to the functioning of the neighborhood. Some people need the dogs to fend off the burglars and will not give them up. But by allowing people to have the dogs, you then have the opporutnity to encourage (and perhaps even mandate) training in dog-handling. You can teach people in the community how to react when a dog comes running down the street barking fiercely. You can teach the members of the community when and how to avoid the dogs, how to properly treat the dogs and how to properly use them. IMHO, education about the proper usage of dogs or the internet or anything else that is going to be encountered in life is the safest way to go. Will someone in this community still suffer the occasional dog attack? Certainly - but that's a far cry better than the situation they're in now.
The Wolf
* Note that this does not excuse parents from their actions -- but we shouldn't be intentionally setting up situations where this will happen on a large scale.
According to the latest HaMevaser report on the Internet concerns among Gedolei Yisrael Shlita, the organization of the nation’s seminaries are planning a kinos this coming Sunday to address the pressing matter. Principals of Chinuch Atzmai affiliated mosdos are also expected to convene in the near future to address the Internet problem.
Rabbonim have indicated they will not permit talmidim in mosdos if they come from homes with Internet connectivity. The same holds true for children of people who own, operate, or maintain an affiliation with chareidi websites, which have already been ordered shut, resulting in partial compliance.
I think that there is a frighteningly large potential for this type of ban to backfire that I wonder if the gedolim are truly analyzing the potential risks/rewards of their ban.
For a community that is experiencing massive parnassah problems (more so than the world at large), the decision to order the closure of websites that employ chareidim only exacerbates the problem. Now, people who were previously employed must go out and find other jobs -- probably in environments that are not as understanding of their social and religious needs as the chareidi websites were.
A person who cannot access the Internet will probably find it harder to find a job. I don't know what the situation in Israel is like, but when I need to find a job, the Internet is the first place I go to. I would be highly surprised to find that there weren't Israeli equivilents (or branches of) Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and the like. Again, in a community where there is a large degree of poverty, we should be making it *easier* for those who are looking for jobs to find them, not harder.
By closing chareidi websites, people who used to get their news from "clean" sources will now have to go sources that are more likely to present the news in ways that the gedolim wouldn't approve of. Just to give an example... imagine that the gedolim ordered (and had the power to enforce) the closure of YWN, VIN and Matzav. What would happen? People would turn to FailedMessiah and OUJ and other sources for their news. Regardless of whether what those sites publish is true or false, I'm sure the gedolim wouldn't want people to go there for their news. The same applies to the chareidi websites -- by closing the "good" ones, they're only pushing people to ones where more salacious news will be reported. I believe this is the exact opposite of what the gedolim intended.
I also find it hard to believe that the ban is going to change the behavior of very many people. Those who were already listening to the gedolim long ago abandoned their Internet connections. Those that were already disregarding the gedolim in this regard will continue to do so. All that's going to change is that those who were accessing the Internet openly will now do so clandestinely. I think the last thing we need to be doing is setting up a situation where parents will be showing their kids that dishonesty is acceptable.* The gedolim certainly don't want to set up situations where kids will learn that it's okay to pay lip service to the words of the gedolim while secretly disobeying them behind their backs.
Then there is the issue of what will happen when a parent is caught with an internet connection. I have long been a proponent of the idea that you don't punish kids for their parents' sins. I said it with regard to Neturei Karta and I am willing to repeat it here -- unless the sin of the parent causes the kid to become a threat to the school or other students, you deal solely with the parent and not the kid. Yes, some might make the argument that the kid might see something on the Internet and repeat it to his/her classmates, etc. Hogwash. Firstly, the school can easily make a rule that *students* are not allowed to access the Internet and punish them for breaking it. Secondly, if you're going to punish the kid because he might pick up something, you can say the same thing about relatives/friends of the kids. Will you ban a kid from school because he has friends in his neighborhood with an Internet connection? Perhaps he might see something at his friend's house. What if his cousin has a TV? Maybe we should kick him out because his cousin might tell him a joke he heard on a Dick Van Dyke rerun that might make it back to the school? In other words, if you're going to kick a kid out of school because he might have secondhand access to material that you consider objectionable, then you have to extend the ban (and penalty of expulsion) quite a bit further than a parent with Internet access.
The worst part of all this is that the gedolim don't seem to realize that the battle is already lost. I can only believe that there are a significant number of chareidim in 2010 that still have Internet connectivity in their homes -- if it were a small minority, then there wouldn't be a need for such a strong public measure. If there are still a significant number of chareidim who are not willing to abandon the Internet after several years of decrees by the gedolim, then I am forced to conclude that the Internet is here to stay -- even among the chareidim.
Imagine living in a society where some people keep fierce guard dogs. The dogs are there partly as pets, but also partly for the utilitarian purpose of protecting the home from theives and other dangers. Of course, not every family has, or needs a dog. Some families may not have anything worth stealing -- and so they don't need a guard dog. Sadly, every so often, a guard dog may attack and injure a family member -- but yet a significant number of the community decide that the rewards of having the dogs around outweigh the risks. The mayor of the town, who is usually well-respected, starts speaking to people about the dangers of having the dogs around. Surely, he tells the people, you can get by without the dogs. So, some people get rid of the dogs while a significant number of them retain the dogs. Some start looking for ways to hide the dogs. Meanwhile, the families that had dogs but got rid of them begin suffering as thieves begin targeting their houses.
As time goes on, the mayor's opposition to the dogs grows. Anytime a child is taken to the hospital because of a dog bite, he takes the opportunity to hold a press conference about how badly the dogs need to go and how big a menace they are to the community. And yet, while some people heed his advice, others find the dogs too valuable to the functioning of their households to give them up. Finally, the mayor issues a law banning the dogs outright. Yet, despite that, there are still dogs in the community. Those that were inclined to heed the mayor already got rid of their dogs. Those that didn't, didn't. And so, even though the dogs are hidden, some people still managed to get attacked by dogs. Usually, it's in the dog-owning families, but occasionally, someone from a non-dog family might be attacked as well. And, of course, the thieves continue to strike because there are fewer guard dogs.
What's the next course of action to take?
The ideal course of action would be to understand that the dogs are necessary to the functioning of the neighborhood. Some people need the dogs to fend off the burglars and will not give them up. But by allowing people to have the dogs, you then have the opporutnity to encourage (and perhaps even mandate) training in dog-handling. You can teach people in the community how to react when a dog comes running down the street barking fiercely. You can teach the members of the community when and how to avoid the dogs, how to properly treat the dogs and how to properly use them. IMHO, education about the proper usage of dogs or the internet or anything else that is going to be encountered in life is the safest way to go. Will someone in this community still suffer the occasional dog attack? Certainly - but that's a far cry better than the situation they're in now.
The Wolf
* Note that this does not excuse parents from their actions -- but we shouldn't be intentionally setting up situations where this will happen on a large scale.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Dei'ah veDibur -- Are They Allowed To Have A Website?
As many of you know, the chareidi gedolim issued a ban on chareidi websites. At least two prominent sites -- Etrog and Chareidim, are closing their doors. One site that is not is Dei'ah veDibur, the website of the Israeli Yated.
Mordechai Plaut, the editor of DvD (heh, how's that for an acronym) put out the following statement concerning the ban and their website:
Statement about Dei'ah Vedibur
The focus of the campaign of the Gedolim against chareidi Internet sites is directed at the forums and blogs that are conducted on an anonymous basis for fun and profit.
Dei'ah Vedibur is the opposite of these. I am fully identified. The site is run on with a low-key style with the aim of informing about the issues that affect the chareidi community. The site has no advertising and no one benefits in any material way if there are more or fewer viewers.
We do not wish, by our presence, to be seen as in any way endorsing or encouraging use of the Internet.
Mordecai Plaut
OK, so Mordechai Plaut basically gives himself a pass because he doesn't make any money and is not anonymous. However, when I look at the translation of the ban that DvD put up, I see nothing that says that a site is exempted if it's owner is identified, if it's low-key or if it doesn't generate revenue. Their main concerns of the organizers of the ban are slander, lies, possible denigration of talmidei chachomim and increasing machlokes (dispute).
They then go on to state:
Even if these sites were free of all of the above prohibitions, they lead people to use the Internet, which is impure and has led to the downfall of numerous Jews.
and (bolding theirs)
These channels must be uprooted and removed from our midst.
I think it's pretty clear. Based on my reading of the ban, I don't see how DvD is exempted from this. I don't see how a site is exempted simply because they are low-key, non-anonymous or have no advertising. Or am I missing something?
The Wolf
(P.S. Personally, I think it's a good thing that DvD continues to operate -- for the chareidim's sake. As a commentator on YWN pointed out (comment #5), the internet is here to stay. By forcing two "clean" sites (Etrog and Chareidim) to close, the chareidim who are going to use the internet are only going to go to other sites which have far more objectionable content [from the chareidi point of view]).
Mordechai Plaut, the editor of DvD (heh, how's that for an acronym) put out the following statement concerning the ban and their website:
Statement about Dei'ah Vedibur
The focus of the campaign of the Gedolim against chareidi Internet sites is directed at the forums and blogs that are conducted on an anonymous basis for fun and profit.
Dei'ah Vedibur is the opposite of these. I am fully identified. The site is run on with a low-key style with the aim of informing about the issues that affect the chareidi community. The site has no advertising and no one benefits in any material way if there are more or fewer viewers.
We do not wish, by our presence, to be seen as in any way endorsing or encouraging use of the Internet.
Mordecai Plaut
OK, so Mordechai Plaut basically gives himself a pass because he doesn't make any money and is not anonymous. However, when I look at the translation of the ban that DvD put up, I see nothing that says that a site is exempted if it's owner is identified, if it's low-key or if it doesn't generate revenue. Their main concerns of the organizers of the ban are slander, lies, possible denigration of talmidei chachomim and increasing machlokes (dispute).
They then go on to state:
Even if these sites were free of all of the above prohibitions, they lead people to use the Internet, which is impure and has led to the downfall of numerous Jews.
and (bolding theirs)
These channels must be uprooted and removed from our midst.
I think it's pretty clear. Based on my reading of the ban, I don't see how DvD is exempted from this. I don't see how a site is exempted simply because they are low-key, non-anonymous or have no advertising. Or am I missing something?
The Wolf
(P.S. Personally, I think it's a good thing that DvD continues to operate -- for the chareidim's sake. As a commentator on YWN pointed out (comment #5), the internet is here to stay. By forcing two "clean" sites (Etrog and Chareidim) to close, the chareidim who are going to use the internet are only going to go to other sites which have far more objectionable content [from the chareidi point of view]).
Monday, December 14, 2009
Are The Inmates Running The Asylum?
R. Jonathan Rosenblum has a column on Cross Currents dealing with the issue of whether or not the current kollel situation is sustainable in light of the crushing poverty that it brings to the chareidi Israeli community. In it, he argues that the "everyone in kollel" was meant to rebuild the Jewish community that was destroyed by the Holocaust and that, at this point, that task is complete. Perhaps the time has come, he argues, to tell people to go to work and that only the best and the brightest, the ones who are willing to dedicate themselves to serving the community and who have the potential to be the next generation of leaders be allowed to continue in kollel indefinitely.
One reader took him to task on this asking if his position is backed up by any of the current gedolim. R. Rosenblum noted that there was no such proclamation from the gedolim and he provided two reasons for that. The second reason is as follows:
There is another reason that there will be no such public statements. Any such statement would be met with vicious attacks by the “kenaim,” who would say about the gadol in question precisely what KollelGuy asks me: Who are you? The Chazon Ish did not say what you are saying; Rav Shach did not say it.” Perhaps KollelGuy remembers the attacks on one of the Sages he mentions for his tacit support of Nahal Chareidi. (Even Rav Shach used to say that he was afraid of the stone-throwers.) One of the members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the United States told me recently that the gedolim cannot even discuss questions surrounding poverty because if they did the “street” would just label them fake gedolim.
I find this rather frightening. I thought central idea of chareidi life was that they are supposed to listen to the words of the gedolim. If the gedolim are afraid to express their opinions about the right and wrong derech, then of what value are they? We might as well just have mob rule (or is that, in effect, what we have already?).
Now, this may sound a bit strange coming from me. After all, a while ago, I suggested that the gedolim need to be accountable to their constituents. But I think that there is a qualitative difference between what I called for and what is going on (according to R. Rosenblum) in chareidi society.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a gadol saying that X is forbidden or that Y is bad -- provided that he can explain to us why it is so. In short, the days of a gadol saying "X is assur" and leaving it at that are done and gone. Today's public needs to be informed as to the reasons behind the decrees of the gedolim if they are going to listen to them. But in the end, I expect a gadol to speak up if he feels something needs to be said for the good of the community -- whether popular or unpopular. If he feels that everyone needs to be in kollel, then he has to say so -- and articulate why. If he feels that the kollel system we have now is crushing the populace and unsustainable, then he needs to say so -- regardless of the consequences -- and, again, articulate why that's the case. But a gadol who is afraid to speak for fear of losing his position and is willing to allow countless people to continue suffering from crushing poverty for the sake of not being labeled a "fake gadol" is already a fake gadol.
The Wolf
One reader took him to task on this asking if his position is backed up by any of the current gedolim. R. Rosenblum noted that there was no such proclamation from the gedolim and he provided two reasons for that. The second reason is as follows:
There is another reason that there will be no such public statements. Any such statement would be met with vicious attacks by the “kenaim,” who would say about the gadol in question precisely what KollelGuy asks me: Who are you? The Chazon Ish did not say what you are saying; Rav Shach did not say it.” Perhaps KollelGuy remembers the attacks on one of the Sages he mentions for his tacit support of Nahal Chareidi. (Even Rav Shach used to say that he was afraid of the stone-throwers.) One of the members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the United States told me recently that the gedolim cannot even discuss questions surrounding poverty because if they did the “street” would just label them fake gedolim.
I find this rather frightening. I thought central idea of chareidi life was that they are supposed to listen to the words of the gedolim. If the gedolim are afraid to express their opinions about the right and wrong derech, then of what value are they? We might as well just have mob rule (or is that, in effect, what we have already?).
Now, this may sound a bit strange coming from me. After all, a while ago, I suggested that the gedolim need to be accountable to their constituents. But I think that there is a qualitative difference between what I called for and what is going on (according to R. Rosenblum) in chareidi society.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a gadol saying that X is forbidden or that Y is bad -- provided that he can explain to us why it is so. In short, the days of a gadol saying "X is assur" and leaving it at that are done and gone. Today's public needs to be informed as to the reasons behind the decrees of the gedolim if they are going to listen to them. But in the end, I expect a gadol to speak up if he feels something needs to be said for the good of the community -- whether popular or unpopular. If he feels that everyone needs to be in kollel, then he has to say so -- and articulate why. If he feels that the kollel system we have now is crushing the populace and unsustainable, then he needs to say so -- regardless of the consequences -- and, again, articulate why that's the case. But a gadol who is afraid to speak for fear of losing his position and is willing to allow countless people to continue suffering from crushing poverty for the sake of not being labeled a "fake gadol" is already a fake gadol.
The Wolf
Thursday, October 29, 2009
I Don't Know What's Sadder...
So, here's the scene...
-- A sizable portion of the male chareidi population in Israel learns all day and does not work.
-- Charieidi families, like all other families, need to purchase food, clothing, etc.
-- Due to various factors (education, the economy in general, etc.), it is difficult even for chareidi women to find employment.
-- Chareidim (like all other communities) want to boost employment in their community.
With me so far? Good, because here's where it starts to get tricky.
-- The chairman of the Shas party arranges for a government call center to open near where chareidim live and employ chariedi women in Northern Israel.
-- Said government call center handles various different services, including health care organizations and pharmacies.
So, the calls start coming in. The women answer them, direct them to where they are supposed to go, whatever. Services are being provided and the women bring home a check, and all is right with the world.
Of course, I wouldn't be bringing this up if the story ended there. As you might expect, there is a fly in the ointment. As it turns out, some of the women have been getting calls regarding "virility pills." Older men are calling in asking questions about Viagara, Cialis or some of the other erectile dysfunction medications that are available. This has caused some problems for the women who view the calls as indecent and obscene. While I suppose it is possible that some of the calls could be what you or I would truly call obscene, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority (if not all) of them were actual honest calls for information about treatment for a medical condition. Since the call center handles calls for medical organizations and pharmacies, such calls are probably to be expected. Rav Asher Idan describes just such a call:
“She answered a call that was supposed to go to a pharmacy,” recalls Rav Idan. “On the other end of the line was a man of about 60, who wanted advice on pills designed to increase virility. He asked her what it does. Because she was unfamiliar with the product he had to explain it to her and then proceeded to ask detailed questions. Only when she realized what he was referring to did she hang up on him.”
Rav Idan then proceeded to state that answering such calls when not in her husband's presence* is a violation of the prohibition of giluy arayos (sexual immorality).
I think it's quite sad that people who are calling a health center about a legitimate health concern are considered "obscene" and "indecent."
I think it's also quite sad that these women are so sheltered that they had no idea that erectile dysfunction exists.
I think it's also quite sad that discussing health matters in a professional setting is considered as violating the boundaries of sexual immorality.
The bottom line is that people should not work in fields where they are unsuited to work. For example, I know that despite the fact that I like to cook, I can never work as a chef in a fancy restaurant. Why? Because of the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. It would be disingenous of me to look for employment in that field and then say "oh, I can't cook this dish" and "oh, I can't cook that dish." Employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees, but if a bona fide criterion for the job is going to interefere with your religion, then you simply cannot take the job. If these women feel that they cannot truly work in a health center because answering bona fide questions regarding male health issues is obscene/indecent, then they should not work there.
Or, perhaps better, they should learn that not everything relating to male sexuality is obscene -- and learn to handle such calls professionally.
That being said, I'd like to end the post on a lighter note. Here's what one "leading askan" said about the incident:
“Employing charedi women should not be taken for granted,” a leading askan in the North told Hebrew website NRG. “Because of modesty issues rabbonim do not recommend women work outside of the home – only in cases where the financial situation is pressing and the woman needs to go out and get a job. Such cases require halachic clarification and a she’elas rov.”
Isn't that priceless? They set up a system where men don't work, forcing the women to work. Now this guy wants to say that women should not work either -- unless they get a hetter (permission) from a rav. And all this in a call center that was set up specifically to emply chareidi women. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.
The Wolf
* I'm not sure why it would be any better (or worse) if she answered such calls if her husband was there.
** Would they say it's obscene or indecent for one of them to call their male OB/GYNs with a gynecological question?
-- A sizable portion of the male chareidi population in Israel learns all day and does not work.
-- Charieidi families, like all other families, need to purchase food, clothing, etc.
-- Due to various factors (education, the economy in general, etc.), it is difficult even for chareidi women to find employment.
-- Chareidim (like all other communities) want to boost employment in their community.
With me so far? Good, because here's where it starts to get tricky.
-- The chairman of the Shas party arranges for a government call center to open near where chareidim live and employ chariedi women in Northern Israel.
-- Said government call center handles various different services, including health care organizations and pharmacies.
So, the calls start coming in. The women answer them, direct them to where they are supposed to go, whatever. Services are being provided and the women bring home a check, and all is right with the world.
Of course, I wouldn't be bringing this up if the story ended there. As you might expect, there is a fly in the ointment. As it turns out, some of the women have been getting calls regarding "virility pills." Older men are calling in asking questions about Viagara, Cialis or some of the other erectile dysfunction medications that are available. This has caused some problems for the women who view the calls as indecent and obscene. While I suppose it is possible that some of the calls could be what you or I would truly call obscene, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority (if not all) of them were actual honest calls for information about treatment for a medical condition. Since the call center handles calls for medical organizations and pharmacies, such calls are probably to be expected. Rav Asher Idan describes just such a call:
“She answered a call that was supposed to go to a pharmacy,” recalls Rav Idan. “On the other end of the line was a man of about 60, who wanted advice on pills designed to increase virility. He asked her what it does. Because she was unfamiliar with the product he had to explain it to her and then proceeded to ask detailed questions. Only when she realized what he was referring to did she hang up on him.”
Rav Idan then proceeded to state that answering such calls when not in her husband's presence* is a violation of the prohibition of giluy arayos (sexual immorality).
I think it's quite sad that people who are calling a health center about a legitimate health concern are considered "obscene" and "indecent."
I think it's also quite sad that these women are so sheltered that they had no idea that erectile dysfunction exists.
I think it's also quite sad that discussing health matters in a professional setting is considered as violating the boundaries of sexual immorality.
The bottom line is that people should not work in fields where they are unsuited to work. For example, I know that despite the fact that I like to cook, I can never work as a chef in a fancy restaurant. Why? Because of the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. It would be disingenous of me to look for employment in that field and then say "oh, I can't cook this dish" and "oh, I can't cook that dish." Employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees, but if a bona fide criterion for the job is going to interefere with your religion, then you simply cannot take the job. If these women feel that they cannot truly work in a health center because answering bona fide questions regarding male health issues is obscene/indecent, then they should not work there.
Or, perhaps better, they should learn that not everything relating to male sexuality is obscene -- and learn to handle such calls professionally.
That being said, I'd like to end the post on a lighter note. Here's what one "leading askan" said about the incident:
“Employing charedi women should not be taken for granted,” a leading askan in the North told Hebrew website NRG. “Because of modesty issues rabbonim do not recommend women work outside of the home – only in cases where the financial situation is pressing and the woman needs to go out and get a job. Such cases require halachic clarification and a she’elas rov.”
Isn't that priceless? They set up a system where men don't work, forcing the women to work. Now this guy wants to say that women should not work either -- unless they get a hetter (permission) from a rav. And all this in a call center that was set up specifically to emply chareidi women. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.
The Wolf
* I'm not sure why it would be any better (or worse) if she answered such calls if her husband was there.
** Would they say it's obscene or indecent for one of them to call their male OB/GYNs with a gynecological question?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Today's Lesson: Bride + Makeup = Bad
Ynet is reporting that the Darchei Rachel seminary in Jerusalem is providing a scholarship of 1000 NIS (about $265) to brides from their seminary who forgo makeup on their wedding day.
The payment comes about as a result of an uptrend of girls who are wearing makeup. The administrators of the school would like to fight this trend and so they are putting this offer out there. It is too soon to judge whether or not the new rule is effective.
There are a few things that I find interesting about this new development:
Firstly, the new rule wasn't promulgated as an outright ban but rather as an incentive. My guess would be that the administrators knew that an outright ban would probably fail, so instead complience with the new rule is being incentivized. I'm sure that in addition to the payment, there will probably be pressure put on the girls from the teachers and the administration to adhere to the new rules. I'm curious, however, if it will morph into an actual ban once enough girls take the bait and it becomes the "norm" not to wear makeup to one's own wedding.
Secondly, I'm actually deeply disturbed by the whole idea that makeup on one's own wedding day is a bad thing. Although it's not explictly stated in the article, I would assume that the school administrators are viewing this as a breach of tznius (does anyone else have any other reasonable explanation?) . I thought the idea of being a bride is that they are *supposed* to look beautiful for their husbands. Hence, we even relax some of the restrictions of Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av for a bride in the period immediately following their wedding.
I suppose the point could be made that wearing makeup is a breach of tznius because she will be seen by other people (aside from her new husband) at the wedding. But that's just downright silly -- if that's the case, then there should be a prohibition on her wearing a white wedding gown -- that probably draws far more attention to her at the wedding than any decent makeup job will do. Or is that the next ban?
Thirdly, I'm concerned because this represents a further shift to the right in the Chareidi world, an instance of taking something that was perfectly acceptable until now and stating now that it is not acceptable. As one hareidi educator said in the article:
"This education institution is for the sector's most righteous girls, who are strict about everything. However, I remain skeptical in regards to the initiative's success, in light of the fact that makeup is acceptable in the haredi society and because it's a particularly exciting day."
In other words, they want to take something that, until now, was perfectly acceptable and make it now unacceptable (and, perhaps, in fifty to a hundred years, say that it was *never* acceptable).
Lastly, I'm concerned because they are taking the approach of using a bazooka to kill roaches. If there is a problem with girls wearing makeup, then why put pressure on brides? Why not incetivize the girls with a pledge not to wear makeup during their attendance at the school? The problem (to my view) is not so much that brides are wearing makeup, but that girls are. Well, if that's the case, then aim at the girls -- don't aim at brides where even if there was an outright ban on makeup you could still make a reasonable exception due to the nature of the event.
The Wolf
The payment comes about as a result of an uptrend of girls who are wearing makeup. The administrators of the school would like to fight this trend and so they are putting this offer out there. It is too soon to judge whether or not the new rule is effective.
There are a few things that I find interesting about this new development:
Firstly, the new rule wasn't promulgated as an outright ban but rather as an incentive. My guess would be that the administrators knew that an outright ban would probably fail, so instead complience with the new rule is being incentivized. I'm sure that in addition to the payment, there will probably be pressure put on the girls from the teachers and the administration to adhere to the new rules. I'm curious, however, if it will morph into an actual ban once enough girls take the bait and it becomes the "norm" not to wear makeup to one's own wedding.
Secondly, I'm actually deeply disturbed by the whole idea that makeup on one's own wedding day is a bad thing. Although it's not explictly stated in the article, I would assume that the school administrators are viewing this as a breach of tznius (does anyone else have any other reasonable explanation?) . I thought the idea of being a bride is that they are *supposed* to look beautiful for their husbands. Hence, we even relax some of the restrictions of Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av for a bride in the period immediately following their wedding.
I suppose the point could be made that wearing makeup is a breach of tznius because she will be seen by other people (aside from her new husband) at the wedding. But that's just downright silly -- if that's the case, then there should be a prohibition on her wearing a white wedding gown -- that probably draws far more attention to her at the wedding than any decent makeup job will do. Or is that the next ban?
Thirdly, I'm concerned because this represents a further shift to the right in the Chareidi world, an instance of taking something that was perfectly acceptable until now and stating now that it is not acceptable. As one hareidi educator said in the article:
"This education institution is for the sector's most righteous girls, who are strict about everything. However, I remain skeptical in regards to the initiative's success, in light of the fact that makeup is acceptable in the haredi society and because it's a particularly exciting day."
In other words, they want to take something that, until now, was perfectly acceptable and make it now unacceptable (and, perhaps, in fifty to a hundred years, say that it was *never* acceptable).
Lastly, I'm concerned because they are taking the approach of using a bazooka to kill roaches. If there is a problem with girls wearing makeup, then why put pressure on brides? Why not incetivize the girls with a pledge not to wear makeup during their attendance at the school? The problem (to my view) is not so much that brides are wearing makeup, but that girls are. Well, if that's the case, then aim at the girls -- don't aim at brides where even if there was an outright ban on makeup you could still make a reasonable exception due to the nature of the event.
The Wolf
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Am I The Only One Not Bothered By This?
Vos Iz Neias has an article about some new rules that are being adopted by twenty hotels in Israel in the hopes of attracting more chareidi guests. Among the rules are:
As you can expect, the article generated a few responses. Among them are:
And the Talibanization of Israel begins. Personal responsibility is no longer an option: The hotels must make those weighty choices for its guests.
in the words of the great Bob Grant "they are sick and getting sicker"
Insane.
Most of the comments are about the regualtions and how silly some of them are.
I agree that a lot of the rules are silly (what's the difference if a person is married and want to access the Internet?), but that's not really the point. Truth be told, I'm not terribly troubled by this.
I think that this was simply a business decision made by the owners of the hotels to attract a different sort of clientelle. They want to attract more chareidim to their establishments and are willing to give up the guests (and their money) who would not stay in a resort such as that. If they guessed correctly, then they will thrive, or else they will have to abandon/modify their policies or go out of business.
As long as the policies are clear to a person making a reservation, and as long as there are alternatives for those that want them, I don't really see why this is a big issue -- it's a business decision -- no more, no less.
As an aside, I found the following rule particularly laughable:
"The television equipment will be disconnected, at the very least by removing the cable and closing it away in storage, as well as disconnecting the central control in reception, such that no one can turn it on. The television itself will be covered or closed in a closet. A guest who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot, or someone who claims he has a television at home and his looks prove this, will be directed to a rabbi who will authorize that he be connected to the television."
I'm curious -- how can you prove someone has a TV in their home just by looking at them?
The Wolf
- No TV (unless requested, but see below for more on this)
- No Internet unless it's a married couple
- No viewing of the swimming areas from the rooms
- Tznius dress for hotel staff
- Separate bars for men and women
- Separate beds in the rooms (or an additional bed to be added)
As you can expect, the article generated a few responses. Among them are:
And the Talibanization of Israel begins. Personal responsibility is no longer an option: The hotels must make those weighty choices for its guests.
in the words of the great Bob Grant "they are sick and getting sicker"
Insane.
Most of the comments are about the regualtions and how silly some of them are.
I agree that a lot of the rules are silly (what's the difference if a person is married and want to access the Internet?), but that's not really the point. Truth be told, I'm not terribly troubled by this.
I think that this was simply a business decision made by the owners of the hotels to attract a different sort of clientelle. They want to attract more chareidim to their establishments and are willing to give up the guests (and their money) who would not stay in a resort such as that. If they guessed correctly, then they will thrive, or else they will have to abandon/modify their policies or go out of business.
As long as the policies are clear to a person making a reservation, and as long as there are alternatives for those that want them, I don't really see why this is a big issue -- it's a business decision -- no more, no less.
As an aside, I found the following rule particularly laughable:
"The television equipment will be disconnected, at the very least by removing the cable and closing it away in storage, as well as disconnecting the central control in reception, such that no one can turn it on. The television itself will be covered or closed in a closet. A guest who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot, or someone who claims he has a television at home and his looks prove this, will be directed to a rabbi who will authorize that he be connected to the television."
I'm curious -- how can you prove someone has a TV in their home just by looking at them?
The Wolf
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Great Comment on Yeshiva World News
YWN has a story about the upcoming protest in Yerushalayim against Egged regarding the lack of Mehadrin buses.
I don't want to start a debate on whether Mehadrin buses are a good idea or a bad idea. What I do want to focus on is a comment made by someone on YWN. "Lo taasu keyn" writes as follows:
I don't want to start a debate on whether Mehadrin buses are a good idea or a bad idea. What I do want to focus on is a comment made by someone on YWN. "Lo taasu keyn" writes as follows:
Though I thoroughly disagree with the concept of sending women to the back of the bus, or treating them with less than the utmost respect, I understand and accept that a significant proportion of residents of Yerushalayim want such arrangements. I’d suggest one thing. Remember where you are. You had the opportunity to elect a charedi Mayor who might have been able to create a compromise on this issue that you could live with. But you, as a community, chose to divide yourself with bickering and recrimination. The consequence was that you got a successful businessman, an intelligent and patriotic mayor, who, while not unfriendly to chareidim sees them as only one of a number of his constituencies.
Instead of demonstrating, if you really believe in this cause, educate your fellow citizens about who you are and what you advocate for in positive, constructive ways. Posters on rechov meah shearim in yiddish and burning dumpsters will change NO minds. Will create NO sympathy, and will be INEFFECTIVE.
Raboisai, that’s what change is about. Not taking out your frustrations, justified or not. Not berating those who disagree with you, or who don’t recognize the authority of Daas Torah to the same extent that you do. It’s about being effective, and that means taking the time and making the effort to create a significant enough constituency that it will have to be heard, and dealt fairly with. It may not succeed, but it stands a much better chance than the usual grievance theatre.
So, you have a choice. give a geshrai about gilui araios, disrespect to daas torah, and unfair treatment, blaming of course the evil tziyoni power structure, or actually do what everyone else in every democracy in the world has to do when they want change - convince enough people to support you through education, cooperation, and compromise that either the government has to listen or you have the wherewithal to change the government. Until then, stop whining.
I think it's an excellent point. However, I am very afraid that this will turn into an excersice of doing things "the wrong way." I've posted in the past about the right way and wrong way to effect change in people's behaviors and it seems to me that time after time after time, the chariedim choose the wrong way. They choose the wrong way to communicate the message about shmiras shabbos, the ehrich way of dealing with people and, sadly, the proper way to observe the mitzvah of tznius.
Many a commentator have pointed out on my blog that the true purpose of these behaviors is not to encourage observance of whatever precept is the cause de jure, but rather to simply reinforce the behavior for their own members. However, to me, that always seems to do more harm than good. If they really want to encourage greater observance of tznius, they'd do well to follow what "Lo taasu keyn" recommends.
They might also do well to speak the truth regarding what is halacha and what is merely a chumra. Stating that separate seating in public transportation is *required* by halacha is just simply wrong -- as thousands (if not millions) of Jews around the world ride mixed-gender public transportation throughout the year with no halachic qualms whatsoever. Perhaps part of the reason that no one takes them seriously is because the people they are trying to influence understand that the chariedim are making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Wolf
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A Step In The Right Direction
Ynet is reporting that a new college for Chareidi women will be opening in Netanya next year. The college will offer courses in accounting, bookkeeping, tax consultation and other subjects.
Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction. Someone in the Chareidi community is realizing that not every woman can be a schoolteacher or a secretary and that if the Hareidi community is to have any chance of surviving in it's present form, education opportunities for women need to be expanded. This is in sharp contrast to earlier times when, only a few short years ago, education opportunities were being taken away from women.
It will be interesting to see what (if any) opposition springs up to this college, how successful it will be and what (if any) effects it will have on the chareidi community at large.
In any event, expanding educational opportunities is usually a good thing and, as such, I'm happy to see that the chareidi community is taking a step in the right direction.
The Wolf
(As an aside, I find it funny that the picture that Ynet put up for this article is so clearly not a chareidi woman.)
Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction. Someone in the Chareidi community is realizing that not every woman can be a schoolteacher or a secretary and that if the Hareidi community is to have any chance of surviving in it's present form, education opportunities for women need to be expanded. This is in sharp contrast to earlier times when, only a few short years ago, education opportunities were being taken away from women.
It will be interesting to see what (if any) opposition springs up to this college, how successful it will be and what (if any) effects it will have on the chareidi community at large.
In any event, expanding educational opportunities is usually a good thing and, as such, I'm happy to see that the chareidi community is taking a step in the right direction.
The Wolf
(As an aside, I find it funny that the picture that Ynet put up for this article is so clearly not a chareidi woman.)
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The Charedim Finally Got It Right... Sort of
Vos Iz Neias is reporting that Egged (the public bus line that serves Israel) has rebuffed efforts by the Chareidi community to institute separate seating bus service to the Kotel. As a result, the Chareidim have called upon people to send money to establish their own bus lines.
In one respect, they finally got it right. If you're not happy with the service being provided and you think that there is enough of a demand for an alternative service, you should go out and provide that alternate service. Rather than forcing people who don't want to sit in separate seating buses* (and who don't hold that it's forbidden for men and women to sit together in public transportation) to accomodate to your wishes, it's far better to start your own bus line.
So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is that the community needs $100,000 to establish the service. The article doesn't state whether this is going to be run as a business or as a community service (and subsidized by charity dollars). My guess is that it's going to be partially subsidized by charity dollars, as I don't think there really is enough of a demand for separate-seating buses to the Kotel (if there were, wouldn't Egged agree to estblish the lines?)
Assuming the busing service is not going to be run as a business, I think it would behoove the chareidi community to decide if having the separate bus line to the Kotel is really worth it. In a community where children and families are going hungry due to a shortage of donations and kollelim might have to close (thereby reducing the amount of Torah being learned), I think the chareidi community needs to take a long, hard look and decide if this bus line is *really* necessary at this time. Resources in any community are scarce and sometimes tough choices have to be made in deciding which public projects should receive those scarce resources. I think that $100,000 could be spent in *much* better ways than setting up a bus line for separate seating to the Kotel.
The Wolf
P.S. I wanted to comment on some of the way over-the-top comments about mixed bus service (mixed journeys of promiscuity?), but I think I'll leave that for another time.
* When Eeees and I went to Israel several years ago, we were there for the first time. Never having been there, we weren't always 100% sure where we were going. Being able to sit together allowed us to feel far more comfortable riding the buses. Both of us riding separately in a country where we had never been, going to a place where we never went to before would have been very uncomfortable and unnerving.
In one respect, they finally got it right. If you're not happy with the service being provided and you think that there is enough of a demand for an alternative service, you should go out and provide that alternate service. Rather than forcing people who don't want to sit in separate seating buses* (and who don't hold that it's forbidden for men and women to sit together in public transportation) to accomodate to your wishes, it's far better to start your own bus line.
So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is that the community needs $100,000 to establish the service. The article doesn't state whether this is going to be run as a business or as a community service (and subsidized by charity dollars). My guess is that it's going to be partially subsidized by charity dollars, as I don't think there really is enough of a demand for separate-seating buses to the Kotel (if there were, wouldn't Egged agree to estblish the lines?)
Assuming the busing service is not going to be run as a business, I think it would behoove the chareidi community to decide if having the separate bus line to the Kotel is really worth it. In a community where children and families are going hungry due to a shortage of donations and kollelim might have to close (thereby reducing the amount of Torah being learned), I think the chareidi community needs to take a long, hard look and decide if this bus line is *really* necessary at this time. Resources in any community are scarce and sometimes tough choices have to be made in deciding which public projects should receive those scarce resources. I think that $100,000 could be spent in *much* better ways than setting up a bus line for separate seating to the Kotel.
The Wolf
P.S. I wanted to comment on some of the way over-the-top comments about mixed bus service (mixed journeys of promiscuity?), but I think I'll leave that for another time.
* When Eeees and I went to Israel several years ago, we were there for the first time. Never having been there, we weren't always 100% sure where we were going. Being able to sit together allowed us to feel far more comfortable riding the buses. Both of us riding separately in a country where we had never been, going to a place where we never went to before would have been very uncomfortable and unnerving.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
The Right Way and The Wrong Way
I was reading Rabbi Maryles's post this morning about the upcoming Jerusalem mayoral elections. In his description of the chariedi candidate, R. Maryles quotes from the World Jewish Digest that in 1987, the candidate entered a movie theatre on Shabbos and started shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" to the people in the theatre. I suppose that he was hoping to make an impression on the moviegoers as to the importance of the mitzvah of Shabbos. I don't know how well he succeded in his mission, but my guess would have to be that he probably failed. I'm willing to bet that most moviegoers in that situation would be completely put off by someone shouting in the middle of the movie and would be, at best, indifferent to the shouters message and, at worst, antagonistic to the message.
If this was a one time event, then I would say that it's just the actions of one person who doesn't understand human nature. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. In many chariedi communities in Israel, people seem to take the negative approach to kiruv. Rather than trying to reinforce in a positive manner why people should keep the mitzvos, they respond in a negative manner which, in all likelihood, destroys any chance of their message being heard. I highly doubt that anyone who had a rock thrown at their car on Shabbos is now keeping Shabbos because of that rock (or at all). I think the chances of someone keeping the mitzvah of tznius (however they choose to define it) because they've had acid thrown in their face is are infintesimal. I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that no one who was on the El-Al flight that was disturbed by a man who didn't want to see a movie is any frummer today because of his example.
Now, I'm not casting any judgements on the chareidi point of view regarding the requirements of tznius, not watching movies, keeping Shabbos, etc. What I am making judgements about are their methods. I don't know why they seem to think that the enforcer's role is the best one. The enforcer's role only works when there is no other option - but in Jewish communities almost anyone on the globe today, one can always opt out (i.e. cease belonging to the group, or being frum altogether). So, forgetting for the moment whether their goals are right or wrong, their methods are clearly the wrong ones to use.
Therefore, as a public service to the chareidi community in Israel, I would like to offer the following guide:
Instead of throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos:
Instead of going into movie theathers and shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" at the moviegoers:
Instead of attacking women and setting fires to stores for violations of tznius:
Instead of looting electronics stores for selling MP3/MP4 players:
And on and on. In other words, find a peaceful means to get your message across. Now, you might ask (and rightfully so) how many potential Shabbos drivers will stop and agree to spend a day with a chareidi family? I agree the answer is not many. But there are still two advantages to this solution: 1. However few, the number of people who pull over and stop driving will be greater than the number of those who continue driving (and speed up, compounding the issur of driving on shabbos); and 2. Even if no one agrees, you're doing far less harm to the cause of Shmiras Shabbos by following my suggestions than you are by throwing stones.
In short, I ask you to keep this in mind: a person is responsible not only for his or her own sins, but also, to varying degrees, for sins that he or she causes other people to commit. I would venture to say that by pushing people further away from keeping the mitzvos by these actions (both the people who are the victims of these actions AND those who might have chosen to become frum but now chose not to because of your actions) you are doing far more harm to yourself and your standing in Heaven than if you simply left matters alone.
The Wolf
If this was a one time event, then I would say that it's just the actions of one person who doesn't understand human nature. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. In many chariedi communities in Israel, people seem to take the negative approach to kiruv. Rather than trying to reinforce in a positive manner why people should keep the mitzvos, they respond in a negative manner which, in all likelihood, destroys any chance of their message being heard. I highly doubt that anyone who had a rock thrown at their car on Shabbos is now keeping Shabbos because of that rock (or at all). I think the chances of someone keeping the mitzvah of tznius (however they choose to define it) because they've had acid thrown in their face is are infintesimal. I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that no one who was on the El-Al flight that was disturbed by a man who didn't want to see a movie is any frummer today because of his example.
Now, I'm not casting any judgements on the chareidi point of view regarding the requirements of tznius, not watching movies, keeping Shabbos, etc. What I am making judgements about are their methods. I don't know why they seem to think that the enforcer's role is the best one. The enforcer's role only works when there is no other option - but in Jewish communities almost anyone on the globe today, one can always opt out (i.e. cease belonging to the group, or being frum altogether). So, forgetting for the moment whether their goals are right or wrong, their methods are clearly the wrong ones to use.
Therefore, as a public service to the chareidi community in Israel, I would like to offer the following guide:
Instead of throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos:
- Line the roads when a car goes by and sing Shabbos zemiros.
- Hand the drivers literature about the beauty of keeping Shabbos.
- Invite them to come spend a meal or a Shabbos afternoon with you.
Instead of going into movie theathers and shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" at the moviegoers:
- Stand outside the theather and invite people on the ticket line to come home with you for a Shabbos meal.
- Invite them to come to your house or shul after the movie for a friendly discussion on the beauty of Shabbos.
- Describe to them how keeping Shabbos is much more meaningful on many different levels than going to a movie.
Instead of attacking women and setting fires to stores for violations of tznius:
- Organize an economic boycott.
- Educate people about the importance of the mitzvah of tznius.
- Explain to people that it's not merely about keeping "women in their place" -- tell people that tznius applies to both genders in various regards.
- Encourage people to innovate new fashions that meet both the letter and spirit of the laws of tznius.
Instead of looting electronics stores for selling MP3/MP4 players:
- Organize a peaceful economic boycott.
- Educate people about how bad these devices are with the goal of eliminating demand.
And on and on. In other words, find a peaceful means to get your message across. Now, you might ask (and rightfully so) how many potential Shabbos drivers will stop and agree to spend a day with a chareidi family? I agree the answer is not many. But there are still two advantages to this solution: 1. However few, the number of people who pull over and stop driving will be greater than the number of those who continue driving (and speed up, compounding the issur of driving on shabbos); and 2. Even if no one agrees, you're doing far less harm to the cause of Shmiras Shabbos by following my suggestions than you are by throwing stones.
In short, I ask you to keep this in mind: a person is responsible not only for his or her own sins, but also, to varying degrees, for sins that he or she causes other people to commit. I would venture to say that by pushing people further away from keeping the mitzvos by these actions (both the people who are the victims of these actions AND those who might have chosen to become frum but now chose not to because of your actions) you are doing far more harm to yourself and your standing in Heaven than if you simply left matters alone.
The Wolf
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Answer is Nine To Five
Jonathan Rosenblum has a new article on Cross Currents entitled "Can We Talk Seriously About Poverty?" He describes how the chareidi community in Israel is suffering from terrible poverty -- about how families are now receiving only between a quarter to a third of what they were receiving from the government earlier and are now facing even further cuts.
He also goes on to discuss that aside from the obvious consequence of not having enough to pay the bills/put food on the table/put clothing on the family's backs, he also describes the less-than-obvious consequences of the crushing poverty -- the disruption of shalom bayis, the fact that poverty increases the incidence of "at-risk" teens, presenting severe challenges to people who want to live their lives in honesty, etc.
After outlining the problem, he lists three possible solutions:
Then I get to the end, to the part where it is supposed to say that it's time for everyone to get jobs, right? I mean, that's the whole point of saying that we need to get out of poverty and stop relying on others.
Shockingly, he doesn't even say one sentence about getting jobs! His conclusion is "What the solutions might be I do not know. But it is clear that we cannot afford to hide our heads in the sand and not address the issue."
Um...How does not getting jobs address the issue????
While Esther managed to hit the nail right on the head, she has, at the same time, missed one very simple point. I don't think that Jonathan Rosenblum is looking for a real solution to the problem of poverty among Israeli chareidim. What I think he's looking for is a solution to the problem of poverty among Israeli chareidim while keeping the current system in place. In other words, if chareidim went out to get jobs, then they wouldn't be chareidim (at least not in the same sense, anyway). If they didn't spend all day learning, then the raison d'etre of the entire system would be destroyed. Of course if they went out and got jobs that would solve the poverty problem, but they would lose who they were.
The problem, in my estimation, is that the chareidim that currently exist never before existed in Jewish history. At no other time since the generation of the Wilderness has an entire community had their needs provided for in such a way that no one had to work. No Jewish government before the current state of Israel -- not under Joshua, David, Solomon, etc. provided for an entire community to be able to sit and learn and do no work -- and certainly no non-Jewish government did either. Throughout all of Jewish history you either had gedolim and communal leaders who worked for a living as did everyone else, or else you had a select few who were supported by the community so that they could continue their studies and, in turn, become the future leaders of K'lal Yisroel. Never did you have a situation where the government simply handed out money to so many people so that they could sit and learn all day.
The problem is that such a situation is simply unsustainable. In discussing the possibility of securing increased government funding for chareidim, Jonathan Rosenblum writes:
Even representing a crucial bloc in the fragile government coalition, Shas has been unable to make any headway on its number one legislative goal: increasing child allowances. And Shas’s demands are exceedingly modest – no more than 30 shekels per month per child, or 240 shekels for a family with eight children. That does not even cover the (reduced) tuition for one son in yeshiva.
And that's the end of the matter. Not once does he discuss the propriety of having the taxpayers (since, in the end, the "government" isn't some magical entity with the ability to create money -- every shekel that it gives out has to come from a taxpayer) fund the chareidi lifestyle. I always wondered (in a morbid sort of way) if the chareidim took control of the government and imposed massive tax hikes to allow chareidim to have decent incomes while not having to work, how long it would be before the chilonim and non-chareidi Orthodox Jews either (a) left the country in droves, eliminating the tax base or (b) started a massive tax-revolt.
Putting aside the issue of the propriety of forcing working Jews to pay for the chareidi lifestyle, let's assume for a moment that they can get the votes and increase the child allowance. At some point, the bubble has to burst, because the chareidi population growth is faster than the working population growth. The situation is, in some ways, analogous to Social Security here in the United States, where the population collecting Social Security is growing at a much faster rate than the population that is paying for it. So, even if they could get the votes for an increase in the child allowance, it is simply a short term solution. In the long run, government aid is simply not the answer to running a system that is unsustainable.
So, what is to be done? Personally, I agree with Jonathan Rosenblum in that we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem does not exist. The problem has to be addressed now, before the system crashes (although, based on some of the descriptions in his article, I'm beginning to wonder if the system hasn't begun to crash). The real solution is simple -- it's not throwing more money into the system. The real solution is to change the system into something that is more sustainable. The real solution is to realize that we are not in the Wilderness, that it wasn't ever intended in Jewish history that the entire community should learn and not work, and that we have to identify who should be learning all day and who should be working and learning on a part-time basis. The real solution begins with identifying the real problem. The real problem isn't the poverty -- that's just a symptom. The real problem is the system itself.
The Wolf
He also goes on to discuss that aside from the obvious consequence of not having enough to pay the bills/put food on the table/put clothing on the family's backs, he also describes the less-than-obvious consequences of the crushing poverty -- the disruption of shalom bayis, the fact that poverty increases the incidence of "at-risk" teens, presenting severe challenges to people who want to live their lives in honesty, etc.
After outlining the problem, he lists three possible solutions:
- increased government aid
- increased charitable contributions from Jews living outside of Israel
- adopting a simpler lifestyle
Then I get to the end, to the part where it is supposed to say that it's time for everyone to get jobs, right? I mean, that's the whole point of saying that we need to get out of poverty and stop relying on others.
Shockingly, he doesn't even say one sentence about getting jobs! His conclusion is "What the solutions might be I do not know. But it is clear that we cannot afford to hide our heads in the sand and not address the issue."
Um...How does not getting jobs address the issue????
While Esther managed to hit the nail right on the head, she has, at the same time, missed one very simple point. I don't think that Jonathan Rosenblum is looking for a real solution to the problem of poverty among Israeli chareidim. What I think he's looking for is a solution to the problem of poverty among Israeli chareidim while keeping the current system in place. In other words, if chareidim went out to get jobs, then they wouldn't be chareidim (at least not in the same sense, anyway). If they didn't spend all day learning, then the raison d'etre of the entire system would be destroyed. Of course if they went out and got jobs that would solve the poverty problem, but they would lose who they were.
The problem, in my estimation, is that the chareidim that currently exist never before existed in Jewish history. At no other time since the generation of the Wilderness has an entire community had their needs provided for in such a way that no one had to work. No Jewish government before the current state of Israel -- not under Joshua, David, Solomon, etc. provided for an entire community to be able to sit and learn and do no work -- and certainly no non-Jewish government did either. Throughout all of Jewish history you either had gedolim and communal leaders who worked for a living as did everyone else, or else you had a select few who were supported by the community so that they could continue their studies and, in turn, become the future leaders of K'lal Yisroel. Never did you have a situation where the government simply handed out money to so many people so that they could sit and learn all day.
The problem is that such a situation is simply unsustainable. In discussing the possibility of securing increased government funding for chareidim, Jonathan Rosenblum writes:
Even representing a crucial bloc in the fragile government coalition, Shas has been unable to make any headway on its number one legislative goal: increasing child allowances. And Shas’s demands are exceedingly modest – no more than 30 shekels per month per child, or 240 shekels for a family with eight children. That does not even cover the (reduced) tuition for one son in yeshiva.
And that's the end of the matter. Not once does he discuss the propriety of having the taxpayers (since, in the end, the "government" isn't some magical entity with the ability to create money -- every shekel that it gives out has to come from a taxpayer) fund the chareidi lifestyle. I always wondered (in a morbid sort of way) if the chareidim took control of the government and imposed massive tax hikes to allow chareidim to have decent incomes while not having to work, how long it would be before the chilonim and non-chareidi Orthodox Jews either (a) left the country in droves, eliminating the tax base or (b) started a massive tax-revolt.
Putting aside the issue of the propriety of forcing working Jews to pay for the chareidi lifestyle, let's assume for a moment that they can get the votes and increase the child allowance. At some point, the bubble has to burst, because the chareidi population growth is faster than the working population growth. The situation is, in some ways, analogous to Social Security here in the United States, where the population collecting Social Security is growing at a much faster rate than the population that is paying for it. So, even if they could get the votes for an increase in the child allowance, it is simply a short term solution. In the long run, government aid is simply not the answer to running a system that is unsustainable.
So, what is to be done? Personally, I agree with Jonathan Rosenblum in that we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem does not exist. The problem has to be addressed now, before the system crashes (although, based on some of the descriptions in his article, I'm beginning to wonder if the system hasn't begun to crash). The real solution is simple -- it's not throwing more money into the system. The real solution is to change the system into something that is more sustainable. The real solution is to realize that we are not in the Wilderness, that it wasn't ever intended in Jewish history that the entire community should learn and not work, and that we have to identify who should be learning all day and who should be working and learning on a part-time basis. The real solution begins with identifying the real problem. The real problem isn't the poverty -- that's just a symptom. The real problem is the system itself.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)