A Jewish wedding ceremony, like many other religious rites and ceremonies, is governed by many laws and customs. One such instance is the period of yichud -- seclusion -- that the bride and groom spend together right after the chuppah.
It should be pointed out, however, that this is *only* the case for Ashkenazim. When a Sefardi couple gets married, they do not go to the yichud room. For them, yichud is performed when the couple goes home after the ceremony. In fact, Rav Yitzchock Yosef considers the idea of a yichud room during the wedding so repugnant that he called it "ugly" and "vulgar." I don't think it's proper for a Rav to call a mainstream Ashkenazi minhag "ugly" and "vulgar" I made my point on that in the linked post)-- but that's really beside the point. The main point for our purposes is that there are strong opposition in at least some Sephardi circles against the practice of going into the yichud room.
With this background information, we can look at a recent event. Rafi, over at Life In Israel, reports on a recent wedding where a Sephardi couple was married. The chosson attended an Ashkenazi yeshiva and his Rosh Yeshiva and friends from the Yeshiva were in attendance. The Rosh Yeshiva directed that the chosson and kallah should go immediately after chuppah to the yichud room, in accordance with the Ashkenazic custom. The chosson refused, intending to follow the custom of his family and the new bride's family. When the chosson refused, the Rosh Yeshiva announced that he was leaving and ordered all the bochrim from the yeshiva to leave with him. Fortunately, Rav Raphael Cohen, a guest at the wedding knew someone at a local Sephardi yeshiva, where they had the boys stop learning and go be mesameach (make merry with dancing) the chosson and kallah.
To me, there are some very troubling aspects to this story:
1. Since when does the minhag of the yeshiva overrule the family minhag of the bride and groom? Do they also expect their Sephardi students to refrain from eating kitniyos on Pesach in their homes? Would they say that it's all right for an Ashkenzi student attending a Sephardi yeshiva to skip the yichud room? I don't think so. Minhagim have long been observed on the basis of inheriting them from your family, not on the basis of what yeshiva you attend. Perhaps there is some basis after all to the fear that some Sephardim in Israel have that their minhagim and other cultural attributes are being slowly eroded by the Ashkenazim.
2. Ultimately, a wedding is valid, even according to Ashkenazim, if the chosson and kallah never go into the yichud room during the wedding. As long as there are witnesses that they went home together (and were alone together) after the wedding, the wedding would be 100% valid. On the other hand, embarrassing the bride, groom and their families is a transgression of a Torah prohibition. How could the Rosh Yeshiva possibly think that his custom (or the custom of his yeshiva, if you will) possibly overrides that?
The Wolf
UPDATE (3/17/11): A commentator has offered an alternate version of the events. I have no way of knowing which is true or not, so take your pick.
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
My Take On the Unfolding Kollel Scandal
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
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
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
Thursday, July 22, 2010
American Rabbanim Being Silent on the Giyur Bill. Why?
That's what a YWN Coffeeroom poster wants to know.
I gave an answer, but the moderators decided it was too... whatever... to put up. So here it is.
Why should most American Rabbanim support a bill in Israel that will delegitimize most of the converts that they create? Do you really think that they will stop with simply questioning the conversions performed under Conserative or Reform auspices? This will affect large numbers of Orthodox rabbis, too, who aren't on the list of acceptable rabbis. So, why should American Rabannim support a bill that will throw the lives of thousands of legitimate converts into turmoil and limbo?
The Wolf
Tonight the government decided to postpone by 6 months a crucial Geyur Bill that would have strengthened the hand of the Rabbanut HaRashit and helped to halt Reform and Conservative "conversions" from creeping into Israel.
HaGon HaChacham Shlomo Amar shlita even demanded that the religious parties quite the government should the bill not pass. The reform and conservative movements in the US waged a serious battle that lead to the postponement of the bill, but for some reason the Orthodox movements outside of Israel remained more or less silent.
As a person living in Israel I cannot understand this! We cannot allow the reform and conservative "conversions" to reach Israel, we are the last place standing.
I gave an answer, but the moderators decided it was too... whatever... to put up. So here it is.
Why should most American Rabbanim support a bill in Israel that will delegitimize most of the converts that they create? Do you really think that they will stop with simply questioning the conversions performed under Conserative or Reform auspices? This will affect large numbers of Orthodox rabbis, too, who aren't on the list of acceptable rabbis. So, why should American Rabannim support a bill that will throw the lives of thousands of legitimate converts into turmoil and limbo?
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
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?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Standards Of Halacha In The Workplace
Ynet (via Vos Iz Neias) is reporting that a new dress regulation will be taking effect at the Shas' Maayan Torah education network in Israel. Specifically, the regulation states that all women employed there must wear a full head covering when reporting for work. In addition, the only acceptable form of head-covering for women is a scarf -- wigs are not permitted (the article doesn't address snoods or other non-hair-like coverings). According to a source in the article, women have been threatened with dismissal if they do not dress according to code.
This new regulation has many women outraged. As you can imagine, there are women who work there who cover their hair with sheitels or other materials. In addition, the article makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.
Some of the VIN commentors have taken the approach that an employer has the right to dictate how employees dress and if you don't like it, you're free to go work someplace else. That's certainly true. If my boss, for whatever insane reason, dictated that employees come to work in bumblebee costumes everyday, I could either go to the costume shop or find a new place to work.*
However, in the above case, my boss has made his bumblebee decree for arbitrary reasons. In this case, however, there is a rationale behind the regulations -- obstensibly, the rationale is halacha. Whomever is issuing these decrees obviously feels that women are required by halacha to wear complete head coverings. And, I suppose, it's not entirely unreasonable to use halacha as a guideline for employee conduct in a religious office in a religious state.
But one has to wonder just how far this can be taken. If one can rule that millions of otherwise observant women who cover their hair with sheitels are violating halacha (despite the fact that millions of frum Jews around the world and in Israel itself view this as perfectly acceptable and within halacha) and therefore worthy of termination, then where does it end?
Should an employer be allowed to raid the contents of employee lunchboxes to make sure they're only using chassidshe shechita or cholov yisroel? Should an employer be allowed to tell employees that they can't go to an otherwise glatt kosher resturaunt for lunch because it doesn't meet his/her personal standards (real or imagined)? Should an employer be allowed to fire a worker who rides to work on a non-mehadrin bus where one is available? In short, where does it end? At what point do we say that the employer doesn't have the right to enforce his brand of halacha at the workplace
Yes, there is still the principle that a worker is not a slave and is free to quit her job at any time. If she doesn't like the rules, she's free to move on. But that's not really the answer is it? I don't know what the economic situation in Israel is like at the current time, but I can't imagine that they're unemployement problem is any better than ours is here in the U.S. Just saying "go get another job" is not the answer -- it's not always so easy. Who says the person can find another job quickly, and at the same salary? In addition, employees have certain intagible benefits that come from being in a job -- seniority, repuation, familiarity with co-workers and the surrounding of the workplace, job security and other benefits that we all enjoy from working at a place after a certain amount of time. By forcing a worker to move on, they lose a lot (if not all) of these benefits. I'm not convinced that forcing an worker to lose these benefits simply for the sake of someone else's interpretation of halacha (when their own is kept by millions of otherwise frum women around the world) is acceptable and proper.
Again, no one argues that there should be minimum standards of dress for both genders in the workplace. And, yes, halacha should probably play a role in that code in a religious office in Israel. But you can't just apply the strictest standard of halacha. It's simply not fair.
The Wolf
* Yes, I understand that there may be other options, but that's really beside the point.
This new regulation has many women outraged. As you can imagine, there are women who work there who cover their hair with sheitels or other materials. In addition, the article makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.
Some of the VIN commentors have taken the approach that an employer has the right to dictate how employees dress and if you don't like it, you're free to go work someplace else. That's certainly true. If my boss, for whatever insane reason, dictated that employees come to work in bumblebee costumes everyday, I could either go to the costume shop or find a new place to work.*
However, in the above case, my boss has made his bumblebee decree for arbitrary reasons. In this case, however, there is a rationale behind the regulations -- obstensibly, the rationale is halacha. Whomever is issuing these decrees obviously feels that women are required by halacha to wear complete head coverings. And, I suppose, it's not entirely unreasonable to use halacha as a guideline for employee conduct in a religious office in a religious state.
But one has to wonder just how far this can be taken. If one can rule that millions of otherwise observant women who cover their hair with sheitels are violating halacha (despite the fact that millions of frum Jews around the world and in Israel itself view this as perfectly acceptable and within halacha) and therefore worthy of termination, then where does it end?
Should an employer be allowed to raid the contents of employee lunchboxes to make sure they're only using chassidshe shechita or cholov yisroel? Should an employer be allowed to tell employees that they can't go to an otherwise glatt kosher resturaunt for lunch because it doesn't meet his/her personal standards (real or imagined)? Should an employer be allowed to fire a worker who rides to work on a non-mehadrin bus where one is available? In short, where does it end? At what point do we say that the employer doesn't have the right to enforce his brand of halacha at the workplace
Yes, there is still the principle that a worker is not a slave and is free to quit her job at any time. If she doesn't like the rules, she's free to move on. But that's not really the answer is it? I don't know what the economic situation in Israel is like at the current time, but I can't imagine that they're unemployement problem is any better than ours is here in the U.S. Just saying "go get another job" is not the answer -- it's not always so easy. Who says the person can find another job quickly, and at the same salary? In addition, employees have certain intagible benefits that come from being in a job -- seniority, repuation, familiarity with co-workers and the surrounding of the workplace, job security and other benefits that we all enjoy from working at a place after a certain amount of time. By forcing a worker to move on, they lose a lot (if not all) of these benefits. I'm not convinced that forcing an worker to lose these benefits simply for the sake of someone else's interpretation of halacha (when their own is kept by millions of otherwise frum women around the world) is acceptable and proper.
Again, no one argues that there should be minimum standards of dress for both genders in the workplace. And, yes, halacha should probably play a role in that code in a religious office in Israel. But you can't just apply the strictest standard of halacha. It's simply not fair.
The Wolf
* Yes, I understand that there may be other options, but that's really beside the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)