For a while now, the letter of Revital Avraham has been making the rounds of the internet and shuls. However, it seems that the story finally found someone who can give it major publicity -- Rebbetzin Jungries. As she writes in her weekly Jewish Press column:
Special Note: A young girl, struggling with the Angel of Death, wrote the following letter. At her request, the letter was sent to many rabbis and rebbetzinsin a position to disseminate her message among our people. Tragically, she is no longer here to see her letter published, but as we approach Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, her neshamahwill surely have an aliyahin the knowledge that her request has been fulfilled and her message read and taken to heart by many.
She then reprints her letter in full. I'm not going to reprint it, but I will provide a summary. The letter can be seen in English and the original Hebrew here.
In short, the letter from Revital Avraham says that she is nineteen years old and is dying. She was a young girl blessed with physical beauty from an early age. She attracted attention from others around her and grew her hair long. She was told by her teachers to keep her beauty for that someone special in her life, but she did not listen and continued to flaunt her looks.
When she was sixteen, she received a warning when her hair caught fire while frying an omlette. She was terribly upset that her hair was gone. Her father tried to console her saying:
Revital, Hashem has made a miracle. You could have been entirely burnt! You now have an opportunity to change and leave your foolish attitude behind you."
However, she was sixteen and probably had an attitude like many teenagers. Her hair grew back over the next two years. She began wearing tight clothes and even "got involved in some trouble." (Her words -- we have no way of knowing what that entails.)
When she was 17, her beloved grandmother died. Her grandmother had tried to help her on her mend her ways, but could not do so. After her death, Revital changed her behavior for the better for a while, but then fell back into her old habits.
A while later, Revital had a dream. Her grandmother was sitting on a stone crying. When asked why she was crying, she wordlessly pointed to her head. However, Revital ignored that warning as well.
A short while later, after complaining about headaches, she went to see a doctor where she was given the bad news that she was dying.
Now dying, Revital is writing this letter to warn young girls of the dangers of dressing immodestly and being overly beautiful.
The letter ends with the postscript that Revital died shortly after composing the letter and asked in her will that it be distributed.
Let me state up front that I have no idea whether or not the story is true. In fact, that's a part of the purpose of this post -- to ask if any of my readers knew Revital (even second-handedly) or any of her relatives.
To me the language of the letter in no way sounds like it came from a nineteen year old -- nineteen year olds simply don't speak that way -- it's just idiomatically wrong. But then again, that's because I read the translation. I read the original Hebrew, but I'm not familiar enough with modern conversational Hebrew to know if it's more in line with the way an actual nineteen year old would write.
Another problem that I have with this is that in all my searches on the web (and I've done a few already), I could never find any other details to corroborate the story. No place of residence, no date of death, no name of school -- nothing. A lack of detail in a story is one of the first signs that it's an urban legend.
The last concern I have about this letter is the implication that it makes -- i.e. be sure to keep the mitzvah of tznius properly or else be subject to terrible life-threatening illnesses. Assuming for a moment that the story is true - how does Revital know that her illness is due to her lack of adherence to the mitzvah of tznius? There are, unfortunately, people who are very stringent in tznius who get sick and there are those who are lax and live long, healthy lives. Is it because she had a dream where her grandmother pointed at her head? That's quite a leap to come to that conclusion. And it's also quite a leap to apply it universally as a warning -- especially when we see that there are plenty of people who are lax in the mitzvah of tznius and don't end up with brain tumors.
So, does anyone know of any corroborating evidence for the story? Does anyone know if the whole thing is a hoax or urban legend?
The Wolf
Showing posts with label jewish press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jewish press. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
The Accuracy (or lack thereof) of the Jewish Calendar
Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, in his weekly My Machberes column in the Jewish Press talks about the Jewish calendar. As a part of this column, he makes the following observation:
In 4104 (344 CE), Hillel wrote his formulas predicting the Hebrew calendar until the Hebrew year 6000 (2240 CE). In 1949, the National Institute of Time and Technology established the Atomic Clock to standardize times throughout the world. Since its establishment, the Atomic Clock has been readjusted several times. Hillel's calendar has never been readjusted and remains supremely accurate. The precision of the Molad announced in every shul during Rosh Chodesh Bentching, indicating the exact time of the new moon in Jerusalem, continues to be breathtaking.
Now, as my mother told me when I was young, it's okay to toot your own horn, but don't do it by putting down others - and especially when don't toot your own horn and put others down when you're wrong.
The Hebrew calendar is pretty accurate, no question about it - but compared to the Atomic clock, it just falls flat.
First, a little background. The Jewish calendar, unlike most calendars, is a luni-solar calendar. While the months are reckoned according to the phases of the moon, it is occassionally reconciled to the solar calendar. Because the solar calendar is longer than the lunar calendar by 11 days (approximately), an extra month is inserted into the calendar 7 out of 19 years. As a result, there are 235 month (12 x 19 + 7 extra months) in the Jewish calendar every 19 years. These 235 lunar months come out to the same length as 228 solar months.
But not exactly.
As it turns out, 235 lunar months does not exactly equal 228 solar months. In fact, the 235 lunar months come out (on average) to about two hours longer than the 228 solar months. Now, two hours over a 19 year span may not sound like much, but over the course of the centuries, they add up. In about 216 years, you have a one-day difference. Since we're 1,665 years away from when the calendar was first set up by Hillel, the differences between the solar and lunar calendar have built up to about eight days. That means that we celebrate our holidays about eight days later in the year than Hillel did. Carried far enough (assuming Moshiach doesn't come by then), we could, in theory, begin celebrating Pesach in the summer! The Hebrew calendar may have been pretty accurate considering the technology of the time that it was established, but to say that it remains "supremely accurate" is just plain bunk.
As for the atomic clock, it's probably unfair to compare it to the Hebrew calendar. Part of the reason for that is that the atomic clock does not reckon time by the motions of heavenly bodies but by the occelations of a cesium atom. A second is no longer 1/31557600 of a year, but is now defined as follows:
The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770* periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
In other words, instead of reckoning time by the sun, they now use cesium atoms (hence the name "atomic clock"). As such, comparing it to the Hebrew calendar would be like comparing apples and oranges... they judge time by two completely different standards.
However, we can look at the Gregorian calendar, which has been in use for over four hundred years. The average Gregorian year differs from the astrnomical year by about 26 seconds per year. As a result, the Gregorian calendar gains a day every 3300 years. That being said, let's see which calendar is more accurate:
Gregorian: gains 1 day in 3300 years
Hebrew: gains about 15 days in 3300 years (1 day every 216 years or so).
Clear winner: Gregorian.
Of course, Pope Gregory had a twelve hundred year head start on Hillel, so it's understandable that his calendar might be more accurate. But to state that the Jewish calendar is "supremely accurate" while descibing the secular calendar as less accurate is just plain wrong.
While we're at it, we should also take a look at this statement of Rabbi Tannenbaum's:
The precision of the Molad announced in every shul during Rosh Chodesh Bentching, indicating the exact time of the new moon in Jerusalem, continues to be breathtaking.
It may be breathtaking, but it's also wrong.
The molad is based on an average period between new moons of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 1/3 seconds. However, that period is actually wrong. The true period for the molad is about 3/5 of a second longer than that. Again, 3/5 of a second per month may not sound like a lot, but over the course of the centuries, they add up. Currently, the true molad is about two and a third hours later than the molad according to the Jewish calendar. Therefore, the molad that is announced in shul is no longer the exact time the new moon is visible over Jerusalem, but the time the new moon is visible over Afghanistan.
The Wolf
* I wonder if people in Chabad would find some significance in that number.
In 4104 (344 CE), Hillel wrote his formulas predicting the Hebrew calendar until the Hebrew year 6000 (2240 CE). In 1949, the National Institute of Time and Technology established the Atomic Clock to standardize times throughout the world. Since its establishment, the Atomic Clock has been readjusted several times. Hillel's calendar has never been readjusted and remains supremely accurate. The precision of the Molad announced in every shul during Rosh Chodesh Bentching, indicating the exact time of the new moon in Jerusalem, continues to be breathtaking.
Now, as my mother told me when I was young, it's okay to toot your own horn, but don't do it by putting down others - and especially when don't toot your own horn and put others down when you're wrong.
The Hebrew calendar is pretty accurate, no question about it - but compared to the Atomic clock, it just falls flat.
First, a little background. The Jewish calendar, unlike most calendars, is a luni-solar calendar. While the months are reckoned according to the phases of the moon, it is occassionally reconciled to the solar calendar. Because the solar calendar is longer than the lunar calendar by 11 days (approximately), an extra month is inserted into the calendar 7 out of 19 years. As a result, there are 235 month (12 x 19 + 7 extra months) in the Jewish calendar every 19 years. These 235 lunar months come out to the same length as 228 solar months.
But not exactly.
As it turns out, 235 lunar months does not exactly equal 228 solar months. In fact, the 235 lunar months come out (on average) to about two hours longer than the 228 solar months. Now, two hours over a 19 year span may not sound like much, but over the course of the centuries, they add up. In about 216 years, you have a one-day difference. Since we're 1,665 years away from when the calendar was first set up by Hillel, the differences between the solar and lunar calendar have built up to about eight days. That means that we celebrate our holidays about eight days later in the year than Hillel did. Carried far enough (assuming Moshiach doesn't come by then), we could, in theory, begin celebrating Pesach in the summer! The Hebrew calendar may have been pretty accurate considering the technology of the time that it was established, but to say that it remains "supremely accurate" is just plain bunk.
As for the atomic clock, it's probably unfair to compare it to the Hebrew calendar. Part of the reason for that is that the atomic clock does not reckon time by the motions of heavenly bodies but by the occelations of a cesium atom. A second is no longer 1/31557600 of a year, but is now defined as follows:
The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770* periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
In other words, instead of reckoning time by the sun, they now use cesium atoms (hence the name "atomic clock"). As such, comparing it to the Hebrew calendar would be like comparing apples and oranges... they judge time by two completely different standards.
However, we can look at the Gregorian calendar, which has been in use for over four hundred years. The average Gregorian year differs from the astrnomical year by about 26 seconds per year. As a result, the Gregorian calendar gains a day every 3300 years. That being said, let's see which calendar is more accurate:
Gregorian: gains 1 day in 3300 years
Hebrew: gains about 15 days in 3300 years (1 day every 216 years or so).
Clear winner: Gregorian.
Of course, Pope Gregory had a twelve hundred year head start on Hillel, so it's understandable that his calendar might be more accurate. But to state that the Jewish calendar is "supremely accurate" while descibing the secular calendar as less accurate is just plain wrong.
While we're at it, we should also take a look at this statement of Rabbi Tannenbaum's:
The precision of the Molad announced in every shul during Rosh Chodesh Bentching, indicating the exact time of the new moon in Jerusalem, continues to be breathtaking.
It may be breathtaking, but it's also wrong.
The molad is based on an average period between new moons of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 1/3 seconds. However, that period is actually wrong. The true period for the molad is about 3/5 of a second longer than that. Again, 3/5 of a second per month may not sound like a lot, but over the course of the centuries, they add up. Currently, the true molad is about two and a third hours later than the molad according to the Jewish calendar. Therefore, the molad that is announced in shul is no longer the exact time the new moon is visible over Jerusalem, but the time the new moon is visible over Afghanistan.
The Wolf
* I wonder if people in Chabad would find some significance in that number.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Teens, Boundaries and Trust
Rabbi Horowitz's column in this week's Jewish Press* addresses a problem that many parents of teens have -- balancing the want (and need) of kids to "do something" on a long winter Saturday night against the need of the parents to make sure that their kids are in a wholesome environment.
He makes one recommendation that parents take the proactive step of organizing an activity for their kids, such as an organized athletic league. Depending on where you live, you may find such programs already exist. There may be basketball leagues for the athletically inclined as well as learning groups for those who want to devote some extra time to learning.
However, not everyone has access to these, or has kids that want to participate in an organized activity. Sometimes, kids just want to "hang out" with friends, go to the local pizza place, or engage in some other "disorganized" activity. I remember when I was a kid, I spent many a Saturday night out with friends of mine. Sometimes it was bowling, sometimes to a movie, or to some other place. And, yes, before anyone asks, it often was mixed (boys and girls). My friends' sisters and their friends were often along for the ride. But we'll get back to that later.
In his article, Rabbi Horowitz makes an important point about establishing a trusting relationship with teenagers while remembering to allow them the freedom that they need. Teens are not five and ten year olds... in many respects, they are young adults, looking to find their own identities. If they are to do this, they have to be allowed a certain amount of freedom to explore. That's not to say that you have to allow everything, of course, but, as a parent, you have to be somewhat flexible. Sure, you might not like to have your son spend his Saturday night at a bowling alley, but you have to may need to compromise to show your teen that you trust him or her.
When I was a kid, my mother trusted me to make certain decisions for myself with regard to which friends to hang out with or where I wanted to go on a Saturday night. Of course, she was always ready to listen to me if I needed advice, but, for the most part, I was allowed to make my own decisions. The reason is that I had her trust - she knew that I was (for the most part) a good kid and hung around with kids who were (again, for the most part) good kids. Yeah, maybe she wasn't so thrilled that I was spending time in mixed company, but I demonstrated to her early on two important traits, which I believe most teens can be taught: (1) that I could develop good judgement and be responsible and (2) that I could learn from mistakes that I make.
My mother had a few rules for when Skipper** and/or I went out. The first was that she had to know where we were going. The second was that if we were going to be late, we had to call. She didn't mind if I stayed out until midnight or one (provided, of course, I made it to the yeshiva's minyan the next day on time) as long as I called her and let her know I was okay (and remember, this was before cell phones).
That's not to say that I was a perfect teen. But I knew enough to know when to "say when." I knew, from the lessons that my mother gave me, what was right and what was wrong (and how far I could venture into the gray area in between). And, most importantly, I had her trust.
I suppose, in many ways, Rabbi Horowitz was writing about my teen years. He stresses the importance of cutting teens slack, and my mother did. He also stresses the importance of maintaining some rules (curfew, checking in if you're going to be late, etc.), which my mother did. And he mentions the importance of, while maintaining a veto power over your teens' choice of destination, using it sparingly -- even if it means going to an activity that you might otherwise disapprove of -- and my mother did that as well.
Walter is now in his mid-teens. George has just entered them and Wilma is not far behind. They are no longer little kids, and Eeees and I can no longer supervise every moment that they spend out of the house with friends. The way I see it, we have a few options: (1) We can just let them go out and, as long we don't get a call from the cops, all is okay. (2) We can forbid them to go anywhere unless the activity and the people are completely pre-approved by us. (3) We can give them some freedom (as is age approriate, of course) and work to instill in them a sense of right and wrong, and give them the mental and emotional tools to allow them to make decisions on their own.
The proper path, I think, is obvious. The first one is the easiest for Eeees and I to follow. However, the risk of things going wrong is just too high that something can go wrong. Kids (yes, even teens) need boundaries and "don't get arrested" is just not enough of a boundary, IMHO. The second path is also a pretty bad one. Yes, the kids won't get in trouble if you supervise and monitor everything they do as teens (assuming you physically can do that). But what happens once they are no longer under your control. However, the day will come (whether it's when they actually become adults, or move out of the house, or when they simply get tired of what they perceive to be excessive parental influence in their lives and rebel) when you simply cannot be on top of them all of the time. If you haven't given them a chance to practice making decisions, then how are they to know how to act once they are out on their own?
Sadly, I think too many parents in our community take the first option out of sheer laziness or the second option out of genuine concern, while not realizing that they are robbing their children of the learning experiences that will serve them well in later life. The last approach is the one taken by my mother and the one that I think is the best to take with kids. Is it possible that the kid will make a bad decision? Yes, it certainly is possible. But you are also giving them the chance to learn from their mistakes, to grow and mature, and, most importantly, to acquire the necessary experience to enable to make responsible life choices in the future.
And isn't that our ultimate job as parents anyway?
The Wolf
P.S. Oh, yeah, I said I'd get back to the mixed company I kept as a teen. Here's the short story: yes, we went out as a group -- my friends, their sisters, some of their female friends. Number of girls I kissed, held hands with or had serious physical activity with at (or as a result of) those meetings: none. Number of girls who became pregnant at any of those meetings: none. Number of "serious relationships" that developed from those meetings: none. Number of times I or one of my friends ended up drunk or high: none. Number of times that we were arrested: none.
Related Post:
Our Kids... Do We Want To Force Them To Keep The Mitzvos?
* This post in no way means to imply that R. Horowitz would have approved of my actions as a teen (described later in the post).
** It should be noted that very often Skipped did *not* go out with my friends and I -- but the rules applied to her as well, whomever she was out with.
He makes one recommendation that parents take the proactive step of organizing an activity for their kids, such as an organized athletic league. Depending on where you live, you may find such programs already exist. There may be basketball leagues for the athletically inclined as well as learning groups for those who want to devote some extra time to learning.
However, not everyone has access to these, or has kids that want to participate in an organized activity. Sometimes, kids just want to "hang out" with friends, go to the local pizza place, or engage in some other "disorganized" activity. I remember when I was a kid, I spent many a Saturday night out with friends of mine. Sometimes it was bowling, sometimes to a movie, or to some other place. And, yes, before anyone asks, it often was mixed (boys and girls). My friends' sisters and their friends were often along for the ride. But we'll get back to that later.
In his article, Rabbi Horowitz makes an important point about establishing a trusting relationship with teenagers while remembering to allow them the freedom that they need. Teens are not five and ten year olds... in many respects, they are young adults, looking to find their own identities. If they are to do this, they have to be allowed a certain amount of freedom to explore. That's not to say that you have to allow everything, of course, but, as a parent, you have to be somewhat flexible. Sure, you might not like to have your son spend his Saturday night at a bowling alley, but you have to may need to compromise to show your teen that you trust him or her.
When I was a kid, my mother trusted me to make certain decisions for myself with regard to which friends to hang out with or where I wanted to go on a Saturday night. Of course, she was always ready to listen to me if I needed advice, but, for the most part, I was allowed to make my own decisions. The reason is that I had her trust - she knew that I was (for the most part) a good kid and hung around with kids who were (again, for the most part) good kids. Yeah, maybe she wasn't so thrilled that I was spending time in mixed company, but I demonstrated to her early on two important traits, which I believe most teens can be taught: (1) that I could develop good judgement and be responsible and (2) that I could learn from mistakes that I make.
My mother had a few rules for when Skipper** and/or I went out. The first was that she had to know where we were going. The second was that if we were going to be late, we had to call. She didn't mind if I stayed out until midnight or one (provided, of course, I made it to the yeshiva's minyan the next day on time) as long as I called her and let her know I was okay (and remember, this was before cell phones).
That's not to say that I was a perfect teen. But I knew enough to know when to "say when." I knew, from the lessons that my mother gave me, what was right and what was wrong (and how far I could venture into the gray area in between). And, most importantly, I had her trust.
I suppose, in many ways, Rabbi Horowitz was writing about my teen years. He stresses the importance of cutting teens slack, and my mother did. He also stresses the importance of maintaining some rules (curfew, checking in if you're going to be late, etc.), which my mother did. And he mentions the importance of, while maintaining a veto power over your teens' choice of destination, using it sparingly -- even if it means going to an activity that you might otherwise disapprove of -- and my mother did that as well.
Walter is now in his mid-teens. George has just entered them and Wilma is not far behind. They are no longer little kids, and Eeees and I can no longer supervise every moment that they spend out of the house with friends. The way I see it, we have a few options: (1) We can just let them go out and, as long we don't get a call from the cops, all is okay. (2) We can forbid them to go anywhere unless the activity and the people are completely pre-approved by us. (3) We can give them some freedom (as is age approriate, of course) and work to instill in them a sense of right and wrong, and give them the mental and emotional tools to allow them to make decisions on their own.
The proper path, I think, is obvious. The first one is the easiest for Eeees and I to follow. However, the risk of things going wrong is just too high that something can go wrong. Kids (yes, even teens) need boundaries and "don't get arrested" is just not enough of a boundary, IMHO. The second path is also a pretty bad one. Yes, the kids won't get in trouble if you supervise and monitor everything they do as teens (assuming you physically can do that). But what happens once they are no longer under your control. However, the day will come (whether it's when they actually become adults, or move out of the house, or when they simply get tired of what they perceive to be excessive parental influence in their lives and rebel) when you simply cannot be on top of them all of the time. If you haven't given them a chance to practice making decisions, then how are they to know how to act once they are out on their own?
Sadly, I think too many parents in our community take the first option out of sheer laziness or the second option out of genuine concern, while not realizing that they are robbing their children of the learning experiences that will serve them well in later life. The last approach is the one taken by my mother and the one that I think is the best to take with kids. Is it possible that the kid will make a bad decision? Yes, it certainly is possible. But you are also giving them the chance to learn from their mistakes, to grow and mature, and, most importantly, to acquire the necessary experience to enable to make responsible life choices in the future.
And isn't that our ultimate job as parents anyway?
The Wolf
P.S. Oh, yeah, I said I'd get back to the mixed company I kept as a teen. Here's the short story: yes, we went out as a group -- my friends, their sisters, some of their female friends. Number of girls I kissed, held hands with or had serious physical activity with at (or as a result of) those meetings: none. Number of girls who became pregnant at any of those meetings: none. Number of "serious relationships" that developed from those meetings: none. Number of times I or one of my friends ended up drunk or high: none. Number of times that we were arrested: none.
Related Post:
Our Kids... Do We Want To Force Them To Keep The Mitzvos?
* This post in no way means to imply that R. Horowitz would have approved of my actions as a teen (described later in the post).
** It should be noted that very often Skipped did *not* go out with my friends and I -- but the rules applied to her as well, whomever she was out with.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Disappointed At The Jewish Press
As you are all aware, a number of J-bloggers called upon the Jewish Press last week to condemn the way that Rabbi Dr. Twerski was blackmailed into resigning from Dov Hikind's task force. Well, they did condemn it... sort on. Here's the response:
The Jewish Press joins our columnist Rabbi Yakov Horowitz and others in condemning the shabby treatment Rabbi Dr. Benzion Twerski received from some self-appointed guardians of the faith over his participation in an anti-abuse task force geared toward the Orthodox community.
Dr. Twerski is a serious, thoughtful and highly talented individual and has much to offer in the way of dealing with child abuse in our community. Those truly committed to the interests of our community should be thinking of ways to get him to spend more time on our problems rather than less.
Although there is no way to guarantee that the sort of thing to which Dr. Twerski was subjected will not recur, we do believe it is as important for Assemblyman Dov Hikind and the others involved in the new task force to spend time reaching out to the community for support and cooperation as it is to highlight the nature of the problem.
There must be clarification of the centrality of halacha to the project, the primacy of due process protections, the involvement of a broad spectrum of people to evaluate complaints and, overall, the momentous contributions a project like this can make to the well-being of our community.
Shabby treatment??! Shabby treatment is what happens when someone snubs you and doesn't say Good Shabbos. Shabby treatment is when your neighbor chooses to ignore your simcha which you invited him to and he doesn't even say Mazel Tov. This wasn't shabby treatment -- it was blackmail. It was a threat to the social (and possibly physical) well being of his family. That's well beyond "shabby treatment." Calling that "shabby treatment" is like calling a gunshot wound a "boo boo."
The response as a whole is tepid at best. Where is the outrage that there are people who actively looking out for the child molesters' best interests? Where is the condemnation of the very fact that there are those who think it's fine and dandy to threaten someone's family because they don't agree with you on a social issue?
I am truly disappointed in the Editorial Board of the Jewish Press. I expected a much stronger response. I'll give them credit for running Rabbi Horowitz's articles on the subject, but I expected that they themselves would see clear to the issue of protecting children from monsters in our midst.
The Wolf
The Jewish Press joins our columnist Rabbi Yakov Horowitz and others in condemning the shabby treatment Rabbi Dr. Benzion Twerski received from some self-appointed guardians of the faith over his participation in an anti-abuse task force geared toward the Orthodox community.
Dr. Twerski is a serious, thoughtful and highly talented individual and has much to offer in the way of dealing with child abuse in our community. Those truly committed to the interests of our community should be thinking of ways to get him to spend more time on our problems rather than less.
Although there is no way to guarantee that the sort of thing to which Dr. Twerski was subjected will not recur, we do believe it is as important for Assemblyman Dov Hikind and the others involved in the new task force to spend time reaching out to the community for support and cooperation as it is to highlight the nature of the problem.
There must be clarification of the centrality of halacha to the project, the primacy of due process protections, the involvement of a broad spectrum of people to evaluate complaints and, overall, the momentous contributions a project like this can make to the well-being of our community.
Shabby treatment??! Shabby treatment is what happens when someone snubs you and doesn't say Good Shabbos. Shabby treatment is when your neighbor chooses to ignore your simcha which you invited him to and he doesn't even say Mazel Tov. This wasn't shabby treatment -- it was blackmail. It was a threat to the social (and possibly physical) well being of his family. That's well beyond "shabby treatment." Calling that "shabby treatment" is like calling a gunshot wound a "boo boo."
The response as a whole is tepid at best. Where is the outrage that there are people who actively looking out for the child molesters' best interests? Where is the condemnation of the very fact that there are those who think it's fine and dandy to threaten someone's family because they don't agree with you on a social issue?
I am truly disappointed in the Editorial Board of the Jewish Press. I expected a much stronger response. I'll give them credit for running Rabbi Horowitz's articles on the subject, but I expected that they themselves would see clear to the issue of protecting children from monsters in our midst.
The Wolf
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Open Letter To the Editors Of The Jewish Press
The following letter was written in coordination with a number of other J-bloggers in the hopes that the message can be disseminated as far and as quickly as possible in a joint campaign against hiding abuse in our communities, and reversing the culture of fear that kannoim have been allowed to engage in for years now. We ask that people take a few seconds and copy and send this letter or another letter on the subject to the editors of the Jewish Press in the hopes that this will show the importance of the issue to the public. This is an issue that cannot be avoided or shoved under the rug, and the threats of individuals cannot be allowed to hold sway over our communities. Please take a few seconds and send a letter to the Jewish Press at letters@jewishpress.com. Thank you!To the Editorial Board of the Jewish Press:
We would like to express our horror at the intimidation and harassment of Dr. Benzion Twerski for his efforts to protect our children from molestation, and we salute you for your courage in publishing the Op-Ed column condemning the harassment of Dr. Twerski. We feel that exposing the actions of the kannoim is the first step in reversing their campaign of terror against members of our community.
We are fed up with the fact that the extremists in our community are allowed to threaten peaceful citizens with threats and we would like to see our police officers arrest and prosecute those who do so to the fullest extent of the law.
If there are any acts of intimidation or threats of violence to Dov Hikind's next appointee to the Child Safety committee; we will join and support a massive email drive to our elected officials – on the local, state and federal levels – to step in and protect those who are helping protect our children.
We respectfully ask you to run an editorial next week condemning this disgraceful act, acknowledging the number of these emails that were sent to you and calling on our leaders and rabbonim to publicly distance themselves from acts of intimidation and violence each and every time they occur with the same fervor reserved for other actions that contradict our holy Torah – and to declare the acts of violence as the sins they are.
Respectfully submitted,
The Wolf (Wolfish Musings)
P.S. Please note that this e-mail was a joint letter composed by numerous members of the community in a coordinated effort.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
So, What's The Difference Dr. Stern?
I love it when people say things and don't grasp the enormity or irony of what they are saying. Case in point, Dr. Ya'akov Stern's letter to the editor in today's Jewish Press (bolding mine):
Rabbi David Willig (Letters, Sept. 12) would have us believe that Torah-true Jews sacrifice their reason at the altar of faith, but let's consider the rabbi's account of the creation of man: "My personal belief, for what it's worth, is that God used the evolutionary process in creation and at some point added the spark of Tzelem Elokim to a manlike creature and thus made the pre-human into a human being."
I see. So for 350 million years these soulless man-forms aimlessly wandered across the planet until one day God said to Himself, "Hey, let's make this world more interesting and give these golems a brain." All I can say is that if someone out there will buy that hooey, I have a special year-end sale on New York's bridges.
Um... and this is fundamentally different from your story of creation in what way, Dr. Stern? In your version, God one day said to Himself "Hey, let's make this reality more interesting and create a universe."
Why is one any more logical than the other that you suspect people who believe in the former are liable to buy New York bridges at discounts while the latter are perfectly sane and logical?
The Wolf
Rabbi David Willig (Letters, Sept. 12) would have us believe that Torah-true Jews sacrifice their reason at the altar of faith, but let's consider the rabbi's account of the creation of man: "My personal belief, for what it's worth, is that God used the evolutionary process in creation and at some point added the spark of Tzelem Elokim to a manlike creature and thus made the pre-human into a human being."
I see. So for 350 million years these soulless man-forms aimlessly wandered across the planet until one day God said to Himself, "Hey, let's make this world more interesting and give these golems a brain." All I can say is that if someone out there will buy that hooey, I have a special year-end sale on New York's bridges.
Um... and this is fundamentally different from your story of creation in what way, Dr. Stern? In your version, God one day said to Himself "Hey, let's make this reality more interesting and create a universe."
Why is one any more logical than the other that you suspect people who believe in the former are liable to buy New York bridges at discounts while the latter are perfectly sane and logical?
The Wolf
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Science and Torah in the Jewish Press, Again
From this week's Letters To The Editor (Jewish Press):
The debate over evolution that emerges every so often in the Jewish Press is fascinating. There are two issues I have always had with supporters of evolution, and I hope they can resolve them for me.
One, supporters of evolution claim the world is billions of years old and that human beings, rather than being spontaneously created by God, gradually evolved. If you accept this, then many parts of Genesis cannot be taken literally. This includes the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, and the Flood. And if you concede that these stories are allegorical, it is difficult to say where the allegories end and the historical account begins. There needs to be a logical explanation of why Abraham should be any more real than his figurative ancestors.
A second issue concerns the role of faith and reason in this debate. For the evolutionists, what would happen if no great rabbis in the past supported your position?
Imagine that rabbis like the Rambam and Rav Hirsch were squarely against a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Would you still believe in evolution and its hundreds of years of accumulated scientific evidence? Or would you suppress your reason in favor of remaining a religious Jew?
Neither approach should appeal to people who consider themselves both rational and religious. If you accept reason over God, even hypothetically, you cannot claim to still be religious, since God is no longer supreme. Rather, the next issue of Biblical Archeological Review will decide what you believe.
And if you choose to remain religious, what is the value in knowing the two approaches are currently compatible? In the end, reason will have to be sacrificed for the sake of your faith. If not by evolution, then by biblical criticism or some other field of study.
Once you admit you are willing to give up reason, you are effectively saying, like your opponents, that in order to be religious you have to drink the Kool-Aid. The fact that your flavor happens to be a little more diluted does not make it any easier to swallow.
It seems to me that attempting to reconcile reason and religion is like that old proverb about trying to dance at two different weddings at the same time. It is a wonderful idea, but in the end you finally have to make a choice.
Mordechai Silberstein
Brooklyn, NY
Dear Mr.* Silberstein,
Your first question is certainly a valid one. One can certainly make the mistake of going too far and allegorizing the entire Torah. Your right that there needs to be some logical explanation as to why one part should be taken literally and the other not. However, before I address that point, I feel the need to point out that even if one lacks a logical explanation, that does not negate the fact that the first parts of Genesis might be true only in the allegorical sense. In other words, a failure to explain a distinction between the two sections does not mean that the distinction does not exist... any more than the failure to explain nuclearfission fusion until recently doesn't mean it hasn't been happening in the stellar cores for (at least) the last few thousand years.
That being said, I think that when you look at events listed in Tanach, you will generally find that they fall into three broad categories: those for which there is external evidence that it occurred as literally described, those for which there is no evidence one way or the others, and those for which there is physical evidence *against* it happening as literally described. Things that fall into the first category tend to occur later in Tanach -- the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the existence of the Davidic dynasty, etc. Things in the second category tend to fall out earlier -- David himself, the earlier Shoftim, etc., the Avos (Patriarchs) themselves fall into this category. The last category tends to include items that are in the earliest part of Genesis -- the story of Creation and the Flood. By examining the physical evidence, you can easily conclude that the earth and humanity have been around longer than 5768 years. You can also easily conclude that a world wide flood, as described in Parshas Noach, could not have happened literally as described. In other words, there is physical evidence (and quite a bit of it) *against* a literal reading of these verses. One could easily postulate that events for which there is physical evidence that they could not have occurred as described should not be taken literally, whereas for events in the other two categories, we can state that they could have or did happen as literally described.
Your second point (regarding the fact that Rabbis in the past have not accepted evolution/cosmology, etc.) is a red herring. One could easily state that the Rambam (since you bring him up) was simply not aware of the evidence. In the lack of evidence to the contrary, I, too, would probably believe in a literal six day Creation. However, I have access to evidence that the Rambam did not. Lest you think that I'm committing some form of heresy by stating that the Rambam may have been deficient in some sort of knowledge, I advise you to open up your Mishneh Torah to the third chapter of Hilchos Yisodei HaTorah where the Rambam provides an entire astronomical scheme which has since been proven wrong. He states that the planets and stars are attached to glass spheres with no empty space (!) between them. He states that the Earth is 40 times the size of the moon, but that is not true by any reasonable measure. He also states that the sun is about 170 times the size of the Earth, but this calculation, too, is incorrect. In other words, do I have to believe these things despite their being physical evidence to the contrary because the Rambam (and many others) believed them to be? The answer is no -- the Rambam did not have access to modern observatories to be able to tell that his measurements were wrong. He could not know that the stars and planets aren't attached to glass spheres because he did not have the technology to find the evidence that it isn't true. The same could easily apply to evolution and cosmology. Since they lacked the evidence that such things could not have literally happened, they were fine with taking a literal approach. Now, however, that we have physical evidence to the contrary, we can (and perhaps must) state that these chapters of Beraishis cannot be taken literally.
You ask the following question:
Imagine that rabbis like the Rambam and Rav Hirsch were squarely against a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Would you still believe in evolution and its hundreds of years of accumulated scientific evidence? Or would you suppress your reason in favor of remaining a religious Jew?
But what you fail to consider is a third possibility: that perhaps the Rambam would agree with us if he were living today. Perhaps if they had access to today's information, they, too, might agree that evolution occurred. Unless you are going to postulate that the Rambam (and other Gedolim) knew everything and could not possibly be misinformed, ignorant of science or mistaken, then you have to account for the possibility that, if the evidence were available in their day, they might looked at it and concluded that yes, the Flood could not have occurred as literally described.
Your conclusion also seems to have a false dichotomy. You seem to indicate that one must allow literalism to triumph over evidence (or reason, as you put it) since, if not, the person who relies on evidence will eventually have to discard his belief since he will undoubtedly uncover some evidence someday that will disprove the entire religion. But once again, you are failing to allow for a third possibility: the possibility that not everything in Tanach *has* to be read literally, the possibility that allegorical interpretation is allowed**, and the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence is correct and that God wants us to use our brains in evaluating it and draw reasonable inferences from it. If not, let me ask you the question in reverse: if you put the Chumash before reason, then what do you do when you find something that incontrovertibly contradicts what the Chumash says? What do you do when you see places that have been inhabited continuously for over four thousand years (in contradiction to the literal reading of the Flood story)? What do you do when genetic studies (the very same genetic studies, mind you, that were celebrated in the Jewish world showing that most Kohanim today descend from one person 3000 years ago) show that it is impossible for us to have all had one common ancestor at the time of the Mabul? What do you do when physical evidence in the earth itself clearly shows it to be older than 5700+ years? Do you just plug your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening?" Or do you think that it's possible, just possible, that perhaps the Torah wasn't speaking literally. If the former, then I respectfully ask just whom is not acting rationally.
Yours truly,
The Wolf
* I do not, in any way, intend to demean Mr. Silberberg. If he has, in fact, earned the honorific "Rabbi," then I would be happy to use that greeting instead. His letter does not indicate one way or the other.
** Of course it's allowed. Or does he think that God's hand was literally seen by the Sea? Does he literally think that Eve is the mother of *all life*? Does he think thatGod's voice literally walked in the Garden?
The debate over evolution that emerges every so often in the Jewish Press is fascinating. There are two issues I have always had with supporters of evolution, and I hope they can resolve them for me.
One, supporters of evolution claim the world is billions of years old and that human beings, rather than being spontaneously created by God, gradually evolved. If you accept this, then many parts of Genesis cannot be taken literally. This includes the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, and the Flood. And if you concede that these stories are allegorical, it is difficult to say where the allegories end and the historical account begins. There needs to be a logical explanation of why Abraham should be any more real than his figurative ancestors.
A second issue concerns the role of faith and reason in this debate. For the evolutionists, what would happen if no great rabbis in the past supported your position?
Imagine that rabbis like the Rambam and Rav Hirsch were squarely against a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Would you still believe in evolution and its hundreds of years of accumulated scientific evidence? Or would you suppress your reason in favor of remaining a religious Jew?
Neither approach should appeal to people who consider themselves both rational and religious. If you accept reason over God, even hypothetically, you cannot claim to still be religious, since God is no longer supreme. Rather, the next issue of Biblical Archeological Review will decide what you believe.
And if you choose to remain religious, what is the value in knowing the two approaches are currently compatible? In the end, reason will have to be sacrificed for the sake of your faith. If not by evolution, then by biblical criticism or some other field of study.
Once you admit you are willing to give up reason, you are effectively saying, like your opponents, that in order to be religious you have to drink the Kool-Aid. The fact that your flavor happens to be a little more diluted does not make it any easier to swallow.
It seems to me that attempting to reconcile reason and religion is like that old proverb about trying to dance at two different weddings at the same time. It is a wonderful idea, but in the end you finally have to make a choice.
Mordechai Silberstein
Brooklyn, NY
Dear Mr.* Silberstein,
Your first question is certainly a valid one. One can certainly make the mistake of going too far and allegorizing the entire Torah. Your right that there needs to be some logical explanation as to why one part should be taken literally and the other not. However, before I address that point, I feel the need to point out that even if one lacks a logical explanation, that does not negate the fact that the first parts of Genesis might be true only in the allegorical sense. In other words, a failure to explain a distinction between the two sections does not mean that the distinction does not exist... any more than the failure to explain nuclear
That being said, I think that when you look at events listed in Tanach, you will generally find that they fall into three broad categories: those for which there is external evidence that it occurred as literally described, those for which there is no evidence one way or the others, and those for which there is physical evidence *against* it happening as literally described. Things that fall into the first category tend to occur later in Tanach -- the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the existence of the Davidic dynasty, etc. Things in the second category tend to fall out earlier -- David himself, the earlier Shoftim, etc., the Avos (Patriarchs) themselves fall into this category. The last category tends to include items that are in the earliest part of Genesis -- the story of Creation and the Flood. By examining the physical evidence, you can easily conclude that the earth and humanity have been around longer than 5768 years. You can also easily conclude that a world wide flood, as described in Parshas Noach, could not have happened literally as described. In other words, there is physical evidence (and quite a bit of it) *against* a literal reading of these verses. One could easily postulate that events for which there is physical evidence that they could not have occurred as described should not be taken literally, whereas for events in the other two categories, we can state that they could have or did happen as literally described.
Your second point (regarding the fact that Rabbis in the past have not accepted evolution/cosmology, etc.) is a red herring. One could easily state that the Rambam (since you bring him up) was simply not aware of the evidence. In the lack of evidence to the contrary, I, too, would probably believe in a literal six day Creation. However, I have access to evidence that the Rambam did not. Lest you think that I'm committing some form of heresy by stating that the Rambam may have been deficient in some sort of knowledge, I advise you to open up your Mishneh Torah to the third chapter of Hilchos Yisodei HaTorah where the Rambam provides an entire astronomical scheme which has since been proven wrong. He states that the planets and stars are attached to glass spheres with no empty space (!) between them. He states that the Earth is 40 times the size of the moon, but that is not true by any reasonable measure. He also states that the sun is about 170 times the size of the Earth, but this calculation, too, is incorrect. In other words, do I have to believe these things despite their being physical evidence to the contrary because the Rambam (and many others) believed them to be? The answer is no -- the Rambam did not have access to modern observatories to be able to tell that his measurements were wrong. He could not know that the stars and planets aren't attached to glass spheres because he did not have the technology to find the evidence that it isn't true. The same could easily apply to evolution and cosmology. Since they lacked the evidence that such things could not have literally happened, they were fine with taking a literal approach. Now, however, that we have physical evidence to the contrary, we can (and perhaps must) state that these chapters of Beraishis cannot be taken literally.
You ask the following question:
Imagine that rabbis like the Rambam and Rav Hirsch were squarely against a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Would you still believe in evolution and its hundreds of years of accumulated scientific evidence? Or would you suppress your reason in favor of remaining a religious Jew?
But what you fail to consider is a third possibility: that perhaps the Rambam would agree with us if he were living today. Perhaps if they had access to today's information, they, too, might agree that evolution occurred. Unless you are going to postulate that the Rambam (and other Gedolim) knew everything and could not possibly be misinformed, ignorant of science or mistaken, then you have to account for the possibility that, if the evidence were available in their day, they might looked at it and concluded that yes, the Flood could not have occurred as literally described.
Your conclusion also seems to have a false dichotomy. You seem to indicate that one must allow literalism to triumph over evidence (or reason, as you put it) since, if not, the person who relies on evidence will eventually have to discard his belief since he will undoubtedly uncover some evidence someday that will disprove the entire religion. But once again, you are failing to allow for a third possibility: the possibility that not everything in Tanach *has* to be read literally, the possibility that allegorical interpretation is allowed**, and the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence is correct and that God wants us to use our brains in evaluating it and draw reasonable inferences from it. If not, let me ask you the question in reverse: if you put the Chumash before reason, then what do you do when you find something that incontrovertibly contradicts what the Chumash says? What do you do when you see places that have been inhabited continuously for over four thousand years (in contradiction to the literal reading of the Flood story)? What do you do when genetic studies (the very same genetic studies, mind you, that were celebrated in the Jewish world showing that most Kohanim today descend from one person 3000 years ago) show that it is impossible for us to have all had one common ancestor at the time of the Mabul? What do you do when physical evidence in the earth itself clearly shows it to be older than 5700+ years? Do you just plug your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening?" Or do you think that it's possible, just possible, that perhaps the Torah wasn't speaking literally. If the former, then I respectfully ask just whom is not acting rationally.
Yours truly,
The Wolf
* I do not, in any way, intend to demean Mr. Silberberg. If he has, in fact, earned the honorific "Rabbi," then I would be happy to use that greeting instead. His letter does not indicate one way or the other.
** Of course it's allowed. Or does he think that God's hand was literally seen by the Sea? Does he literally think that Eve is the mother of *all life*? Does he think thatGod's voice literally walked in the Garden?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Visiting Day... The Wolf Answers Another Letter
Rebbetzin Jungries' column in the Jewish Press this week features a letter from a parent about camp visiting day. After three paragraphs of praising R. Jungries, the letter writer finally gets to the point:
I am writing this letter because I feel that something must be done about the nightmare that Camp Visiting Day has become. It is a situation that needs an airing, and while we may not be able to influence events on the world scene, this is something that is definitely in our hands and could ease the burdens of many families, and G-d knows, people have enough to contend with nowadays.
My husband and I are the grateful parents of five wonderful children (bli ayin hara), with, Baruch Hashem, a sixth on the way. My husband is salaried – he works very hard, but by the time the deductions are made from his paycheck, there is not much left, so I try to supplement his income with a part-time job. It is not easy, but Baruch Hashem, we manage to pay our bills, even if there is nothing left at the end of the year. My parents are not in a position to help – my in-laws are divorced and have their own problems. As for my siblings – they are struggling, as well. I write all this to give you a better understanding of the dynamics of our family, which I don’t think are too different from the challenges that most have to contend with these days.
It is a sacrifice for my husband and me to send our children to camp. Nevertheless, as difficult as it may be to write that check for camp fees, we do not want our children to feel deprived or different from their friends, and we do not think this is a matter of spoiling or indulging them. Nowadays, camp is not a luxury (although there may be some who consider it as such); if we didn’t send our children to camp, they would be totally lost. None of their friends are in the city, so camp has become a necessity. And now, to the immediate reason for my letter – the Visiting Day nightmare.
No sooner do the kids depart, and it’s visiting day, and like it or not, we all have to go, because all the other parents are going, and if we’re not there, our children will feel deprived and abandoned. I have always felt that these visiting days are ridiculous, and I dread them. The traffic is always horrendous... we have an old car, and more often than not, it overheats. There is always some problem on the road – a flat, the little ones are crying, whining, getting carsick, and having to make pit stops every minute. Then, when we finally arrive at camp (between our girls and boys we have to visit two different ones, the logistics of which is another nightmare), no sooner do we arrive than the kids clamor to be “taken off grounds” to get something good to eat!
So we head toward the nearest village (which is a nightmare in itself as well as an unnecessary expense). By the time we finish, we have run up a sizeable bill. Finally, it’s time to get back to camp, tip the counselors and waiters (another hefty sum), go through the traumatic weeping goodbyes (my daughter always gets very emotional), and pile into the car for our trip back to the city. If the trip up was bad, the return is 10 times worse. The traffic is more congested, the little ones are tired and cranky, and we return home muttering to ourselves “Never again!”
This year, however, presented even greater problems than before. Our family, like most, has been affected by the financial crunch. Prices are constantly soaring – everything has gone up, and unfortunately, our income isn’t keeping pace with the higher cost of living. Mind you, I am not complaining. I know people who unfortunately have been laid off and have no income at all, so I thank G-d for whatever we have. I know that I don’t have to tell you that gasoline prices have gone out of control. The round-trip to the mountains, plus the tolls, costs us close to $200. No matter how frugal we try to be, the cost is tremendous, and we, as most families, can ill-afford it. The expense and aggravation of visiting day is something that we can all do without!
In view of this physical, emotional, and financial wear and tear, I would respectfully recommend that visiting day be abolished or at least put on hold. I think that the camp directors would also be grateful since the day interrupts the routine that the children have finally acclimated to. As for the parents, they would certainly be happy. I have spoken to many people and they all agree that they could do very well without this aggravating day. Everyone would be grateful! Nowadays, we have enough to contend with in our lives, and this is one pressure that can easily be eliminated. I hope that, through your column, something constructive will be done.
A Frustrated Parent
Here's my reply:
Dear Frustrated Parent,
Thank you for your letter. I can certainly understand much of your frustration. I've had three kids in camp for the last three summers, and have certainly gone through my share of visiting days. I never look forward to the driving, sitting in traffic and tolls -- and with the sharp spike in gasoline prices over the last two years, the cost of the trip has risen significantly.
That being said, however, I think there are several points in your letter that need to be addressed. You don't state where you live, but I'm going to make the assumption that, if you're traveling by car for visiting day, that you are somewhere in the New York City metropolitan area. That being said, I have to start with the very first assumption that you made; specifically, that camp is not a luxury. In this, I have to disagree with you. You gave two reasons why you feel that camp is a necessity and not a luxury; you stated that they'd be "totally lost" with it and the fact that none of their friends are in the city. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "totally lost." I'm assuming you mean that they won't have any structured activity at all and that they'll just "bum around the neighborhood" all summer. While I agree with you that that is not an ideal situation, I would submit that there are alternatives. One such alternative is day camp. Yes, maybe your son's friends might not be there, but this might also be an opportunity for him to make some new friends. The cost is less than that of sleepaway camp and you'd be spared the whole visiting day hassle.
However, let's lay this discussion aside. Let's assume that all the day camps in your area closed or are completely and utterly inappropriate for your child. And, furthermore, let's say that you can afford sleepaway camp and want them to go. So, off they go to camp. However, then we have to deal with visiting day.
It sounds to me, from your letter, that visiting day is a major expense for you. In your letter, you indicated four major sources of expenditure for visiting day: gas, tolls, tips and going off-site to eat. This is aside from the frustration of traffic, driving, automotive problems (such as your chronically overheating car), the traumatic goodbyes, etc.
For the expenditures, there are several ways you can mitigate the costs. You can share a ride with another group of parents. More than once Eeees and I have taken other parents up to the country for visiting day. While they didn't offer to pay, you could easily offer to split the gas and tolls with someone who would otherwise have room in their car. Many camps charter buses from the city for a nominal fee. That too, is cheaper than driving.
For tips, you could give smaller tips, or send your kids to a camp that doesn't allow tipping. You can also bring up sandwiches and the like to eat and not go off site. Will these things make you a popular parent with your kids? No, probably not. But so what? Visiting day is about spending time with your family, not going out to eat. I went to sleep away camp for seven years as a kid and never once went off-site to eat on visiting day. I was not traumatized, nor was I scarred for life by having to eat the camp food on visiting day. Neither will your kids. If your kids are mature enough to go to sleepaway camp, they can be mature enough to understand the idea that the day is expensive enough as it is. Will they be happy about it? Probably not. But not everything is about their happiness.
There is also the option of just not going up for visiting day. Now, before you jump down my throat and state that this is a ridiculous position, hear me out. You state that there are many problems involved with going up to camp on visiting day. Some are problems that affect everyone who drives from New York City (the traffic, the travel time, etc.). Then there are problems that seem to be a problem for only some people (the cost, car troubles, the traumatic goodbyes, etc.). I don't think it's a good idea to abolish visiting for all parents because of the problems that some parents have. Not everyone has a problem paying for gas. Not everyone has a bad car and not everyone's kids suffer emotional trauma at the end of visiting day when it's time to go home. In short, I'm sorry that you have these problems, but that's not a reason to cancel visiting day for those parents who don't have those problems. Likewise, while you (and I) might not want to deal with the frustration of driving, that's no reason to abolish it for those that are happily willing to put up with it. Using your logic, we should abolish sleepaway camp altogether -- after all, there are some people who just cannot afford to send their kids to camp at all. However, I don't think that you would advocate this position. I think you would say that it should be available as an option for those who can/will pay for it. The same applies to visiting day.
That being said, that leaves you with a choice. Perhaps, if the cost is so great that it's going to cause a major financial hardship, or the frustarations involved are so great that the day is going to be ruined, then perhaps you should not go up for visiting day. Again, your children will certainly not be happy with your decision to stay home, but if they are mature enough to go to camp, they should be mature enough to understand the financial considerations involved. You should be able to explain to your children that $200 is a major expense that just cannot be borne at this time. If you've trained your children right in life, they should be able to understand it, even if they aren't happy about it.
All that being said, I think that there are changes that could be made to make visiting day a more pleasurable experience. Perhaps the camps could stagger the Sundays of visiting day (although, in a year like this one where Tisha B'Av falls on a Sunday that can be difficult). Perhaps camps should have programs for kids whose parents are not expected up, so that they aren't just sitting around feeling lonely. When I was a kid in Mogen Avraham many years ago, there was only one visiting day in the summer, now there are two. Perhaps we can find a way to go back to one. In short, there are ways to make visitng day better for all involved without eliminating it altogether, which is unfair.
Wishing you an easy trip this year,
The Wolf
I am writing this letter because I feel that something must be done about the nightmare that Camp Visiting Day has become. It is a situation that needs an airing, and while we may not be able to influence events on the world scene, this is something that is definitely in our hands and could ease the burdens of many families, and G-d knows, people have enough to contend with nowadays.
My husband and I are the grateful parents of five wonderful children (bli ayin hara), with, Baruch Hashem, a sixth on the way. My husband is salaried – he works very hard, but by the time the deductions are made from his paycheck, there is not much left, so I try to supplement his income with a part-time job. It is not easy, but Baruch Hashem, we manage to pay our bills, even if there is nothing left at the end of the year. My parents are not in a position to help – my in-laws are divorced and have their own problems. As for my siblings – they are struggling, as well. I write all this to give you a better understanding of the dynamics of our family, which I don’t think are too different from the challenges that most have to contend with these days.
It is a sacrifice for my husband and me to send our children to camp. Nevertheless, as difficult as it may be to write that check for camp fees, we do not want our children to feel deprived or different from their friends, and we do not think this is a matter of spoiling or indulging them. Nowadays, camp is not a luxury (although there may be some who consider it as such); if we didn’t send our children to camp, they would be totally lost. None of their friends are in the city, so camp has become a necessity. And now, to the immediate reason for my letter – the Visiting Day nightmare.
No sooner do the kids depart, and it’s visiting day, and like it or not, we all have to go, because all the other parents are going, and if we’re not there, our children will feel deprived and abandoned. I have always felt that these visiting days are ridiculous, and I dread them. The traffic is always horrendous... we have an old car, and more often than not, it overheats. There is always some problem on the road – a flat, the little ones are crying, whining, getting carsick, and having to make pit stops every minute. Then, when we finally arrive at camp (between our girls and boys we have to visit two different ones, the logistics of which is another nightmare), no sooner do we arrive than the kids clamor to be “taken off grounds” to get something good to eat!
So we head toward the nearest village (which is a nightmare in itself as well as an unnecessary expense). By the time we finish, we have run up a sizeable bill. Finally, it’s time to get back to camp, tip the counselors and waiters (another hefty sum), go through the traumatic weeping goodbyes (my daughter always gets very emotional), and pile into the car for our trip back to the city. If the trip up was bad, the return is 10 times worse. The traffic is more congested, the little ones are tired and cranky, and we return home muttering to ourselves “Never again!”
This year, however, presented even greater problems than before. Our family, like most, has been affected by the financial crunch. Prices are constantly soaring – everything has gone up, and unfortunately, our income isn’t keeping pace with the higher cost of living. Mind you, I am not complaining. I know people who unfortunately have been laid off and have no income at all, so I thank G-d for whatever we have. I know that I don’t have to tell you that gasoline prices have gone out of control. The round-trip to the mountains, plus the tolls, costs us close to $200. No matter how frugal we try to be, the cost is tremendous, and we, as most families, can ill-afford it. The expense and aggravation of visiting day is something that we can all do without!
In view of this physical, emotional, and financial wear and tear, I would respectfully recommend that visiting day be abolished or at least put on hold. I think that the camp directors would also be grateful since the day interrupts the routine that the children have finally acclimated to. As for the parents, they would certainly be happy. I have spoken to many people and they all agree that they could do very well without this aggravating day. Everyone would be grateful! Nowadays, we have enough to contend with in our lives, and this is one pressure that can easily be eliminated. I hope that, through your column, something constructive will be done.
A Frustrated Parent
Here's my reply:
Dear Frustrated Parent,
Thank you for your letter. I can certainly understand much of your frustration. I've had three kids in camp for the last three summers, and have certainly gone through my share of visiting days. I never look forward to the driving, sitting in traffic and tolls -- and with the sharp spike in gasoline prices over the last two years, the cost of the trip has risen significantly.
That being said, however, I think there are several points in your letter that need to be addressed. You don't state where you live, but I'm going to make the assumption that, if you're traveling by car for visiting day, that you are somewhere in the New York City metropolitan area. That being said, I have to start with the very first assumption that you made; specifically, that camp is not a luxury. In this, I have to disagree with you. You gave two reasons why you feel that camp is a necessity and not a luxury; you stated that they'd be "totally lost" with it and the fact that none of their friends are in the city. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "totally lost." I'm assuming you mean that they won't have any structured activity at all and that they'll just "bum around the neighborhood" all summer. While I agree with you that that is not an ideal situation, I would submit that there are alternatives. One such alternative is day camp. Yes, maybe your son's friends might not be there, but this might also be an opportunity for him to make some new friends. The cost is less than that of sleepaway camp and you'd be spared the whole visiting day hassle.
However, let's lay this discussion aside. Let's assume that all the day camps in your area closed or are completely and utterly inappropriate for your child. And, furthermore, let's say that you can afford sleepaway camp and want them to go. So, off they go to camp. However, then we have to deal with visiting day.
It sounds to me, from your letter, that visiting day is a major expense for you. In your letter, you indicated four major sources of expenditure for visiting day: gas, tolls, tips and going off-site to eat. This is aside from the frustration of traffic, driving, automotive problems (such as your chronically overheating car), the traumatic goodbyes, etc.
For the expenditures, there are several ways you can mitigate the costs. You can share a ride with another group of parents. More than once Eeees and I have taken other parents up to the country for visiting day. While they didn't offer to pay, you could easily offer to split the gas and tolls with someone who would otherwise have room in their car. Many camps charter buses from the city for a nominal fee. That too, is cheaper than driving.
For tips, you could give smaller tips, or send your kids to a camp that doesn't allow tipping. You can also bring up sandwiches and the like to eat and not go off site. Will these things make you a popular parent with your kids? No, probably not. But so what? Visiting day is about spending time with your family, not going out to eat. I went to sleep away camp for seven years as a kid and never once went off-site to eat on visiting day. I was not traumatized, nor was I scarred for life by having to eat the camp food on visiting day. Neither will your kids. If your kids are mature enough to go to sleepaway camp, they can be mature enough to understand the idea that the day is expensive enough as it is. Will they be happy about it? Probably not. But not everything is about their happiness.
There is also the option of just not going up for visiting day. Now, before you jump down my throat and state that this is a ridiculous position, hear me out. You state that there are many problems involved with going up to camp on visiting day. Some are problems that affect everyone who drives from New York City (the traffic, the travel time, etc.). Then there are problems that seem to be a problem for only some people (the cost, car troubles, the traumatic goodbyes, etc.). I don't think it's a good idea to abolish visiting for all parents because of the problems that some parents have. Not everyone has a problem paying for gas. Not everyone has a bad car and not everyone's kids suffer emotional trauma at the end of visiting day when it's time to go home. In short, I'm sorry that you have these problems, but that's not a reason to cancel visiting day for those parents who don't have those problems. Likewise, while you (and I) might not want to deal with the frustration of driving, that's no reason to abolish it for those that are happily willing to put up with it. Using your logic, we should abolish sleepaway camp altogether -- after all, there are some people who just cannot afford to send their kids to camp at all. However, I don't think that you would advocate this position. I think you would say that it should be available as an option for those who can/will pay for it. The same applies to visiting day.
That being said, that leaves you with a choice. Perhaps, if the cost is so great that it's going to cause a major financial hardship, or the frustarations involved are so great that the day is going to be ruined, then perhaps you should not go up for visiting day. Again, your children will certainly not be happy with your decision to stay home, but if they are mature enough to go to camp, they should be mature enough to understand the financial considerations involved. You should be able to explain to your children that $200 is a major expense that just cannot be borne at this time. If you've trained your children right in life, they should be able to understand it, even if they aren't happy about it.
All that being said, I think that there are changes that could be made to make visiting day a more pleasurable experience. Perhaps the camps could stagger the Sundays of visiting day (although, in a year like this one where Tisha B'Av falls on a Sunday that can be difficult). Perhaps camps should have programs for kids whose parents are not expected up, so that they aren't just sitting around feeling lonely. When I was a kid in Mogen Avraham many years ago, there was only one visiting day in the summer, now there are two. Perhaps we can find a way to go back to one. In short, there are ways to make visitng day better for all involved without eliminating it altogether, which is unfair.
Wishing you an easy trip this year,
The Wolf
Friday, July 18, 2008
Are Women's Shabbos Clothing Inherently Immodest?
There's an interesting item tucked away in this week's Machberes column in the Jewish Press.
Ultimate Coats by Modest Design announced, in chassidishe advertising weeklies, that it has two styles of coats for weddings or other occasions. The ad notes that the Rimanover Rebbe, in his city, had ordained that Jewish daughters should wear an oiber malbush, loosely translated as an upper [outer] garment or overcoat. Presumably, this is a light overcoat that covers dresses, etc. When women are elegantly dressed, on their way to or returning from smachos, the overcoat would cover their nice outfits and embrace them in modesty.
OK, seems nice. But why is it necessary?
Regarding Ultimate Coats, Rabbi Shraga Feivish Hager, Kosover Rebbe in Boro Park, writes that he has been troubled for years that when Jewish daughters go to smachos they are dressed in their finest Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits. Of course, they are going to a mitzvah in making their friend happy, especially kallos at their weddings. Nevertheless they are going through the streets or on the Boro Park/ Williamsburg bus, etc., where there are married men and bochurim. He has long been searching for a solution. Thank Heaven, the Kosover Rebbe writes, that righteous women have come up with an answer. A nice thin overcoat that will guard them well. Though it may be hot in warm weather, it is a good thing, he says. Rabbi Getzel Elyakim Berkowitz, Kiryas Yoel Dayan, in a letter written last year, also praises the new garment for street wear, especially when going to smachos.
What this says to me (and perhaps I'm reading it wrong) is that Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits are inherently immodest. After all, if they conform to the laws of modesty, then why the need for an additional cover? If they are inherently immodest, then why have women been walking in the streets in them until now?
Of course, we're all aware that there are women's outfits that may fit the technical definition of tznius but violate the spirit of the law. However, I'm inclined to believe (and again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the followers fo the Kosover Rebbe already wear garments that are tznius according to both the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't think the Kosover Rebbe has too many "Hot Chanies" in his kehilla.
In addition, this leads to other questions as well. Once we've decided that a woman should not be seen by men in her Shabbos finery, then what does a hostess wear? Imagine if a couple wants to have his wife's sister and husband over for a Shabbos meal. What do they wear? Can they wear their Shabbos finery in front of their brothers-in-law? If so, then why not in the street? If not, then are they required to change into something less fine specifically for the meal? I'm sure that there are other perfectly legitimate social situations where similar questions could be asked.
Personally, I find this to be another symptom in our over obsession about tznius. Yes, modesty is important - but, as in all things, one has to find the happy medium.
The Wolf
UPDATE: I just saw that Josh, over at Parsha, has a much better and extensive take on this.
Ultimate Coats by Modest Design announced, in chassidishe advertising weeklies, that it has two styles of coats for weddings or other occasions. The ad notes that the Rimanover Rebbe, in his city, had ordained that Jewish daughters should wear an oiber malbush, loosely translated as an upper [outer] garment or overcoat. Presumably, this is a light overcoat that covers dresses, etc. When women are elegantly dressed, on their way to or returning from smachos, the overcoat would cover their nice outfits and embrace them in modesty.
OK, seems nice. But why is it necessary?
Regarding Ultimate Coats, Rabbi Shraga Feivish Hager, Kosover Rebbe in Boro Park, writes that he has been troubled for years that when Jewish daughters go to smachos they are dressed in their finest Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits. Of course, they are going to a mitzvah in making their friend happy, especially kallos at their weddings. Nevertheless they are going through the streets or on the Boro Park/ Williamsburg bus, etc., where there are married men and bochurim. He has long been searching for a solution. Thank Heaven, the Kosover Rebbe writes, that righteous women have come up with an answer. A nice thin overcoat that will guard them well. Though it may be hot in warm weather, it is a good thing, he says. Rabbi Getzel Elyakim Berkowitz, Kiryas Yoel Dayan, in a letter written last year, also praises the new garment for street wear, especially when going to smachos.
What this says to me (and perhaps I'm reading it wrong) is that Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits are inherently immodest. After all, if they conform to the laws of modesty, then why the need for an additional cover? If they are inherently immodest, then why have women been walking in the streets in them until now?
Of course, we're all aware that there are women's outfits that may fit the technical definition of tznius but violate the spirit of the law. However, I'm inclined to believe (and again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the followers fo the Kosover Rebbe already wear garments that are tznius according to both the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't think the Kosover Rebbe has too many "Hot Chanies" in his kehilla.
In addition, this leads to other questions as well. Once we've decided that a woman should not be seen by men in her Shabbos finery, then what does a hostess wear? Imagine if a couple wants to have his wife's sister and husband over for a Shabbos meal. What do they wear? Can they wear their Shabbos finery in front of their brothers-in-law? If so, then why not in the street? If not, then are they required to change into something less fine specifically for the meal? I'm sure that there are other perfectly legitimate social situations where similar questions could be asked.
Personally, I find this to be another symptom in our over obsession about tznius. Yes, modesty is important - but, as in all things, one has to find the happy medium.
The Wolf
UPDATE: I just saw that Josh, over at Parsha, has a much better and extensive take on this.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
More Proof That Kashrus Buzzwords Don't Mean Anything
I've known for a while that kashrus has been moving away from actual kashrus to marketing. For example, I posted last December about a package of unprocessed barley needing two (I guess one isn't good enough) hechsherim.
Today's Jewish Press has a gem of a letter from Dr. Yitzchock Levine:
Today I saw in a store a self-heating meal labeled “Vegetarian Stuffed Cabbage, Pareve.” Over the kashrus symbol giving the name of the supervising rabbi, there was Hebrew lettering that read “Glatt Kosher.”
I can’t wait to call this rabbi and ask him how they check the lungs of the cabbage and rice that are in this product!
It is so comforting to see a kashrus standard namely Glatt Kosher, Pareve that our great-grandparents never enjoyed.
More proof that kashrus "buzzwords" such as "Glatt Kosher," "Mehadrin" and "Chassidishe..." are losing their true meanings and are becoming mere marketing tools.
The Wolf
Today's Jewish Press has a gem of a letter from Dr. Yitzchock Levine:
Today I saw in a store a self-heating meal labeled “Vegetarian Stuffed Cabbage, Pareve.” Over the kashrus symbol giving the name of the supervising rabbi, there was Hebrew lettering that read “Glatt Kosher.”
I can’t wait to call this rabbi and ask him how they check the lungs of the cabbage and rice that are in this product!
It is so comforting to see a kashrus standard namely Glatt Kosher, Pareve that our great-grandparents never enjoyed.
More proof that kashrus "buzzwords" such as "Glatt Kosher," "Mehadrin" and "Chassidishe..." are losing their true meanings and are becoming mere marketing tools.
The Wolf
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Destroying A Young Person's Respect For Their Parents
For the last few weeks, Rebbetzin Jungreis' column in The Jewish Press has focused on the shidduch problem of "working boys" being viewed as "second class citizens" in the shidduch market*.
This week, she had letters from two young women - one who was looking for a "working boy" and one who was looking for a "learning boy" (while being respectful to workers). However, both girls had one thing in common -- their working fathers were put down to their faces.
The first girl writes (emphasis mine):
Once, my principal accused me of doing some inappropriate things that I would never dream of doing. When I told her that I was raised differently and that my Yiddishkeit meant too much to me to ever participate in the activities she accused me of, she said that she would expect such behavior from me because I was "not a good girl" as I unfortunately "come from a working family." Even more hurtful was when I was told to "not lower myself to my father's level" by marrying a working guy even if he would devote time to Torah.
The second girl had a similar experience when applying for seminary:
I was not prepared for the hurt that was inflicted upon me. The person who interviewed me questioned me about my parents' professions and their heavy work schedules, and then went on to make some very unkind, critical remarks which I prefer not to repeat because, a) it's too hurtful and b) it would be disrespectful to my parents. I left the interview shattered and broke down in tears. I later found out that I was not the only one who had been reduced to tears – other girls were equally mistreated and put to shame.
What the hell is going on here? It's one thing to extol a learning lifestyle, but it's quite another thing to bash a young person's father in front of their face! We're not talking about men who are murderers, tax cheats, rapists or other social and/or criminal misanthropes. We're talking about fine, upstanding human beings who daven every day, go to work each day, probably set aside times to learn Torah, are shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos and obviously feel that their daughters' Torah education is worth the huge monetary investment that they make in it. And what do they get for their money? The administration teaches their kids that they are "on a lower level" and that the home is obviously not a good home. They feel that such people are open game for ridicule and harassment -- and not just behind their backs but to their kids' faces!
I'm also left to wonder about these teachers/administrators who make these remarks. How could these people possibly be allowed to be in chinuch? How can a teacher possibly teach the mitzvah of honoring your parents at one moment and at in the next belittle a child's parent to their face? How do we allow people who obviously have no idea what the mitzvah of lashon hara means to teach our children the halachos of that very mitzvah? How can any school (public, private, parochial... it doesn't matter) allow any teacher to have contact with kids when they destroy the most important things in the lives of those kids -- namely their parents? How dare they! Just who the hell do they think they are?!
I, apparently, wasn't aware of the famous "working father" exception to the mitzvah of kibbud av. I certainly didn't know of the well-known halacha that one is only not allowed to say lashon hara about kollel families. Silly me... I didn't realize that intentionally harming the psyche of a young person was permitted when the target of the attack doesn't spend eight hours in the beis midrash every day. I must have been out working the day they taught those halachos.
If this is the case, I don't know how any working family can send their kids to such a school. It would serve the schools right to have every working family pull out of the school (after all, why send your daughter to a school where she's going to be taught to view you with scorn and disrespect). Let's see the school try to financially survive without the very people that they are harming.
The Wolf
* Yes, I used the term market. That's what it's become, IMHO.
This week, she had letters from two young women - one who was looking for a "working boy" and one who was looking for a "learning boy" (while being respectful to workers). However, both girls had one thing in common -- their working fathers were put down to their faces.
The first girl writes (emphasis mine):
Once, my principal accused me of doing some inappropriate things that I would never dream of doing. When I told her that I was raised differently and that my Yiddishkeit meant too much to me to ever participate in the activities she accused me of, she said that she would expect such behavior from me because I was "not a good girl" as I unfortunately "come from a working family." Even more hurtful was when I was told to "not lower myself to my father's level" by marrying a working guy even if he would devote time to Torah.
The second girl had a similar experience when applying for seminary:
I was not prepared for the hurt that was inflicted upon me. The person who interviewed me questioned me about my parents' professions and their heavy work schedules, and then went on to make some very unkind, critical remarks which I prefer not to repeat because, a) it's too hurtful and b) it would be disrespectful to my parents. I left the interview shattered and broke down in tears. I later found out that I was not the only one who had been reduced to tears – other girls were equally mistreated and put to shame.
What the hell is going on here? It's one thing to extol a learning lifestyle, but it's quite another thing to bash a young person's father in front of their face! We're not talking about men who are murderers, tax cheats, rapists or other social and/or criminal misanthropes. We're talking about fine, upstanding human beings who daven every day, go to work each day, probably set aside times to learn Torah, are shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos and obviously feel that their daughters' Torah education is worth the huge monetary investment that they make in it. And what do they get for their money? The administration teaches their kids that they are "on a lower level" and that the home is obviously not a good home. They feel that such people are open game for ridicule and harassment -- and not just behind their backs but to their kids' faces!
I'm also left to wonder about these teachers/administrators who make these remarks. How could these people possibly be allowed to be in chinuch? How can a teacher possibly teach the mitzvah of honoring your parents at one moment and at in the next belittle a child's parent to their face? How do we allow people who obviously have no idea what the mitzvah of lashon hara means to teach our children the halachos of that very mitzvah? How can any school (public, private, parochial... it doesn't matter) allow any teacher to have contact with kids when they destroy the most important things in the lives of those kids -- namely their parents? How dare they! Just who the hell do they think they are?!
I, apparently, wasn't aware of the famous "working father" exception to the mitzvah of kibbud av. I certainly didn't know of the well-known halacha that one is only not allowed to say lashon hara about kollel families. Silly me... I didn't realize that intentionally harming the psyche of a young person was permitted when the target of the attack doesn't spend eight hours in the beis midrash every day. I must have been out working the day they taught those halachos.
If this is the case, I don't know how any working family can send their kids to such a school. It would serve the schools right to have every working family pull out of the school (after all, why send your daughter to a school where she's going to be taught to view you with scorn and disrespect). Let's see the school try to financially survive without the very people that they are harming.
The Wolf
* Yes, I used the term market. That's what it's become, IMHO.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Infallible Gedolim Or Just A Looney Letter?
I'm sorry folks. I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse but I can rarely resist when I see letters like this.
This week's Letters to the Editor of the Jewish Press contains a letter that is just so irrational and full of silly logic that I just have to step in and say something. Here's the letter verbatim:
Re the criticism leveled by readers at the banning of the Lipa Schmeltzer concert (Letters, March 21):
Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”? Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.
The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius? Perhaps we should have a mashgiach’s hechsher haskomah on our “kosher” entertainment, especially when we expose our children to it. Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?
It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.” They are infallible! These gedolim from across the spectrum are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.
The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.
These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc. There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days. If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?
On Purim, the Jews did teshuvah for disobeying Mordechai and once again accepted his leadership and decisions. Let us reestablish our own commitment to our chachomim, our gedolim, our tzaddikim, our rebbes.
Oy. Where to start? Well, I suppose we can start at the beginning:
Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”?
Sorry, but when the Jews said "na'aseh v'nishma" they said it specifically on things that were coming from God, not from Moshe. In fact, having learned about the Dor HaMidbar (the Generation of the Wilderness), I'm always willing to bet dollars to donuts that they were only willing to accept what God gave them. Had Moshe said "oh, and I have this 614th mitzvah for you as well" they would have rejected it out of hand (the prohibition of Bal Tosif [adding commandments] notwithstanding).
Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.
Sorry, but "Emunas Chachomim" has never meant completely shutting off your brains and literally following the gedolim without seeking to understand why they rule as they do.
The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius?
There is a very good reason why we should not trust the rabbanim on this issue (at least specifically with regard to the Lipa concert). When I bring a chicken to a rav and he rules trief, I know that I can be reasonably assured of four things: (a) he will actually look at the chicken in question and base the decision on his own findings (b) I can also inspect the chicken and look up the halachos and also determine that the chicken is treif, (c) if I take it to another rav, the overwhelming likelihood is that he, too, will say it's treif and (d) if I bring another identical chicken to the rav, he will give an identical ruling.
That's not the case here. The Lipa Schmeltzer concert was banned based on false information, rumor and innuendo. The gedolim (to the best of my knowledge and according to published reports) did not so much and pick up the phone and contact the organizers of the concert or the performers to find out if the rumors they were hearing were true or not. They simply took the word of the instigators and relied on that without any further efforts. In other words, they didn't even look at the chicken.
In addition, I know that if I bring my rav a chicken, I can ask him *why* the chicken is treif. I can ask him to show me where in the Shulchan Aruch or later authorities it says that it is treif. In other words, I can ask him what the basis for the ruling was. No real basis for the ruling was given in the kol koreh that was distributed.
The biggest problem, however, is the last item I mentioned above. There have been countless other concerts in the past that have gone on, some with mixed seating and some with separate seating, without any problem. In addition, there are concerts coming up in the future that have both mixed-seating and separate seating sections and there is no kol koreh concerning them. Why not? If one of the criteria for a concert being "bad" is the presence of mixed seating (as indicated later in the letter) then why haven't the 33 rabbanim who signed the previous kol koreh against Lipa also signing one against the upcoming Miami Boys Choir concert? In short, if a rav rules my chicken treif and then one that is more obviously trief is ruled kosher without explaining why, then I *have* to question the rav's judgement. Of course, if he can tell me the reasons for his ruling, then that's a different story. But that's not what is happening here.
Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?
The short answer to your question is because there is no halachic requirement to have a mechitza by a concert. If you want to hold to the chumra of separate seating by a concert, then kol hakavod -- but don't force your chumras on me or everyone else.
The even shorter answer is that the Lipa concert had *ony* separate seating -- so don't try to pretend that that's the reason the concert was banned.
It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.”
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Seriously - if you're suggesting that the gedolim be given the power to dictate every last detail of our lives, then what else would you call them but dictators?!
They are infallible!
I don't know how any rational, thinking person can believe this. I have to conclude that the letter writer is completely ignorant of Jewish history where gedolim who were far, far greater than the current group have made errors - sometimes very grave ones with terrible consequences for the Jewish people as a whole.
Only God is infallible. To suggest that any human being is infallible is bordering on heresy IMHO. He is attempting to ascribe to a human being a quality that God alone has.
These gedolim from across the spectrum
From A to B (okay, maybe from A to D). I didn't see anyone outside the yeshivish/chassidic communities signing the prohibition. Or does the letter writer just assume that people who fall outside the narrow band of the communities represented by the gedolim aren't "Jewish enough" to be included?
are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.
I'm certain that some of them are. But that doesn't make every decision that they make very wise or even correct.
The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.
You might want to check out the Yerushalmi in Horiyos on that. It says that you should listen to Chazal only when it is correct -- not when they make obvious errors.
These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc.
That's all true and to their credit. And yet, it's completely irrelevant to the question of their fallibility.
There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days.
Again, see the Yerushalmi in Horiyos. And I'd like to ask the letter writer the same question that I asked last week -- if a rav told him to do something completely drastic (divorce his wife, move to the Congo, kill his neighbor, send his kids to live with frum strangers on the other side of the country, etc.) would he really then follow up and do so without a second thought or without *any* hesitation?
If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?
There's a difference between respect and blind obedience. I respect my father, but if he told me to take my 401(k), cash it out, and invest it in a uranium mine in Asbury Park, or no-cal pizza, I'm not going to do it (unless he can really convince me that it's the right thing to do). We owe our parents respect for the hard work and effort they put into raising us, but not blind obedience. They same applies to the chachamim. They deserve respect for their Torah knowledge and for their efforts to the community; but not blind obedience.
The Wolf
This week's Letters to the Editor of the Jewish Press contains a letter that is just so irrational and full of silly logic that I just have to step in and say something. Here's the letter verbatim:
Re the criticism leveled by readers at the banning of the Lipa Schmeltzer concert (Letters, March 21):
Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”? Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.
The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius? Perhaps we should have a mashgiach’s hechsher haskomah on our “kosher” entertainment, especially when we expose our children to it. Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?
It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.” They are infallible! These gedolim from across the spectrum are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.
The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.
These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc. There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days. If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?
On Purim, the Jews did teshuvah for disobeying Mordechai and once again accepted his leadership and decisions. Let us reestablish our own commitment to our chachomim, our gedolim, our tzaddikim, our rebbes.
Oy. Where to start? Well, I suppose we can start at the beginning:
Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”?
Sorry, but when the Jews said "na'aseh v'nishma" they said it specifically on things that were coming from God, not from Moshe. In fact, having learned about the Dor HaMidbar (the Generation of the Wilderness), I'm always willing to bet dollars to donuts that they were only willing to accept what God gave them. Had Moshe said "oh, and I have this 614th mitzvah for you as well" they would have rejected it out of hand (the prohibition of Bal Tosif [adding commandments] notwithstanding).
Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.
Sorry, but "Emunas Chachomim" has never meant completely shutting off your brains and literally following the gedolim without seeking to understand why they rule as they do.
The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius?
There is a very good reason why we should not trust the rabbanim on this issue (at least specifically with regard to the Lipa concert). When I bring a chicken to a rav and he rules trief, I know that I can be reasonably assured of four things: (a) he will actually look at the chicken in question and base the decision on his own findings (b) I can also inspect the chicken and look up the halachos and also determine that the chicken is treif, (c) if I take it to another rav, the overwhelming likelihood is that he, too, will say it's treif and (d) if I bring another identical chicken to the rav, he will give an identical ruling.
That's not the case here. The Lipa Schmeltzer concert was banned based on false information, rumor and innuendo. The gedolim (to the best of my knowledge and according to published reports) did not so much and pick up the phone and contact the organizers of the concert or the performers to find out if the rumors they were hearing were true or not. They simply took the word of the instigators and relied on that without any further efforts. In other words, they didn't even look at the chicken.
In addition, I know that if I bring my rav a chicken, I can ask him *why* the chicken is treif. I can ask him to show me where in the Shulchan Aruch or later authorities it says that it is treif. In other words, I can ask him what the basis for the ruling was. No real basis for the ruling was given in the kol koreh that was distributed.
The biggest problem, however, is the last item I mentioned above. There have been countless other concerts in the past that have gone on, some with mixed seating and some with separate seating, without any problem. In addition, there are concerts coming up in the future that have both mixed-seating and separate seating sections and there is no kol koreh concerning them. Why not? If one of the criteria for a concert being "bad" is the presence of mixed seating (as indicated later in the letter) then why haven't the 33 rabbanim who signed the previous kol koreh against Lipa also signing one against the upcoming Miami Boys Choir concert? In short, if a rav rules my chicken treif and then one that is more obviously trief is ruled kosher without explaining why, then I *have* to question the rav's judgement. Of course, if he can tell me the reasons for his ruling, then that's a different story. But that's not what is happening here.
Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?
The short answer to your question is because there is no halachic requirement to have a mechitza by a concert. If you want to hold to the chumra of separate seating by a concert, then kol hakavod -- but don't force your chumras on me or everyone else.
The even shorter answer is that the Lipa concert had *ony* separate seating -- so don't try to pretend that that's the reason the concert was banned.
It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.”
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Seriously - if you're suggesting that the gedolim be given the power to dictate every last detail of our lives, then what else would you call them but dictators?!
They are infallible!
I don't know how any rational, thinking person can believe this. I have to conclude that the letter writer is completely ignorant of Jewish history where gedolim who were far, far greater than the current group have made errors - sometimes very grave ones with terrible consequences for the Jewish people as a whole.
Only God is infallible. To suggest that any human being is infallible is bordering on heresy IMHO. He is attempting to ascribe to a human being a quality that God alone has.
These gedolim from across the spectrum
From A to B (okay, maybe from A to D). I didn't see anyone outside the yeshivish/chassidic communities signing the prohibition. Or does the letter writer just assume that people who fall outside the narrow band of the communities represented by the gedolim aren't "Jewish enough" to be included?
are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.
I'm certain that some of them are. But that doesn't make every decision that they make very wise or even correct.
The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.
You might want to check out the Yerushalmi in Horiyos on that. It says that you should listen to Chazal only when it is correct -- not when they make obvious errors.
These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc.
That's all true and to their credit. And yet, it's completely irrelevant to the question of their fallibility.
There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days.
Again, see the Yerushalmi in Horiyos. And I'd like to ask the letter writer the same question that I asked last week -- if a rav told him to do something completely drastic (divorce his wife, move to the Congo, kill his neighbor, send his kids to live with frum strangers on the other side of the country, etc.) would he really then follow up and do so without a second thought or without *any* hesitation?
If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?
There's a difference between respect and blind obedience. I respect my father, but if he told me to take my 401(k), cash it out, and invest it in a uranium mine in Asbury Park, or no-cal pizza, I'm not going to do it (unless he can really convince me that it's the right thing to do). We owe our parents respect for the hard work and effort they put into raising us, but not blind obedience. They same applies to the chachamim. They deserve respect for their Torah knowledge and for their efforts to the community; but not blind obedience.
The Wolf
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Lipa Ban: JP Letters To The Editors
This week's Letters To The Editors in The Jewish Press is devoted entirely to the issue of the Lipa concert ban. Of the six letters published, five express concern and/or dismay at the ban and/or the way it was handled. The sixth letter, however, is from Dr. Yaakov Stern (I seem to recall hearing that name before on this blog). After telling over a story about a chassid and his rebbe, he continues:
This story illustrates the faith we must have in our religious leaders. Sadly, we see how far we are from this ideal in light of the reaction to the banning of the Lipa concert. I hate to use clichés, but in the matter of following Gedolei Yisrael, “Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or…” You can fill in the blanks, and they should be taken literally because not only we are dealing with a lav of the Torah (Lo Tosur), but to malign our religious leaders is to undermine the foundation of Yiddishkeit.
It seems that Dr. Stern's position is that when a Gadol says something, we are to immediately turn off our brains and simply do what we are told to do. I suppose that's one way to conduct one's life... but I highly doubt that many of us would really do so. I'm wonder; if a Gadol told Dr. Stern to do something truly drastic in his life (give up his house, divorce his wife, kill his neighbor, etc.) would he actually do it without a second thought? I don't know Dr. Stern, so I can't rightfully answer that question - but I will say that if the answer is "yes," then it is downright scary the amount of control over his life that he's willing to cede to others; and if the answer is no, then he's simply being hypocritical -- after all, I don't think that in his Torah the lav (negative commandment) of Lo Tosur doesn't have any exemptions.
Rashi, on the verse of Lo Tosur, quotes the Sifri, which states that you have to listen to the sages even "if they tell you that right is left and that left is right." Well, that is one way of looking at it. Then, there is also the Yerushalmi's way of looking at it. The Yerushalmi in Horiyos (1:1) seems to state just the opposite. It states:
יכול אם יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין תשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל. (I might think that if they [the Rabbis] tell you that right is left and that left is right that you should listen to them, the verse, "to go right or left) comes to tell you that [you should listen to them only] when they tell you right that is [really] right and left that is [really] left.
In other words, one is only required to listen to the Sages when, in fact, you know that the ruling is based on solid fact. If they make a ruling that is mistaken (telling you that right is left, for example), then you aren't under any obligation to follow them. I often find it interesting how whenever anyone brings up the topic of listening to the Gedolim, the Sifri is always mentioned, but the Yerushalmi is usually ignored.
But hey, we can say eilu v'eilu, right? He can follow his way if he likes and we can follow our way, right? Alas not. He continues...
Alas, I fear this exhortation will be lost due to the modern day Korachs who appeal to the masses to reject the edicts of those who seek only our best long-term interests.
Alas, it seems that someone who disagrees with anything a gadol says is a "Korach," no matter how sincere or well-intentioned he is in his belief that the Gadol may have made his ruling on facts in error. I find it interesting that Dr. Stern chose to use Korach to describe anyone to disagrees with him, since the dispute of Korach is given in the Mishna in Avos as the archetype of a dispute that is not l'shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven). If I read enough into his statement, I suppose I can say that he is implying that if you disagree with a Gadol, your opinion can never be truly l'shem shamayim, since you are just like Korach.
If that's the case, it's sad. Sad that some feel we've come to the point where differing opinions are bad and that one must shut off one's brain in order to be a good Jew. It's also sad to see that some people have to resort to ad hominem attacks (calling people with differing opinions "Korachs" to make their point.
The Wolf
(Just as a final point, there is one point in his letter that I agree with Dr. Stern on. If one disagrees with a Gadol and thinks his ruling is based on facts that aren't true, that's one thing. But it's no license to "malign our religious leaders." Disagreement with anyone, whether it be a Gadol or a layperson, should be done with respect.
This story illustrates the faith we must have in our religious leaders. Sadly, we see how far we are from this ideal in light of the reaction to the banning of the Lipa concert. I hate to use clichés, but in the matter of following Gedolei Yisrael, “Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or…” You can fill in the blanks, and they should be taken literally because not only we are dealing with a lav of the Torah (Lo Tosur), but to malign our religious leaders is to undermine the foundation of Yiddishkeit.
It seems that Dr. Stern's position is that when a Gadol says something, we are to immediately turn off our brains and simply do what we are told to do. I suppose that's one way to conduct one's life... but I highly doubt that many of us would really do so. I'm wonder; if a Gadol told Dr. Stern to do something truly drastic in his life (give up his house, divorce his wife, kill his neighbor, etc.) would he actually do it without a second thought? I don't know Dr. Stern, so I can't rightfully answer that question - but I will say that if the answer is "yes," then it is downright scary the amount of control over his life that he's willing to cede to others; and if the answer is no, then he's simply being hypocritical -- after all, I don't think that in his Torah the lav (negative commandment) of Lo Tosur doesn't have any exemptions.
Rashi, on the verse of Lo Tosur, quotes the Sifri, which states that you have to listen to the sages even "if they tell you that right is left and that left is right." Well, that is one way of looking at it. Then, there is also the Yerushalmi's way of looking at it. The Yerushalmi in Horiyos (1:1) seems to state just the opposite. It states:
יכול אם יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין תשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל. (I might think that if they [the Rabbis] tell you that right is left and that left is right that you should listen to them, the verse, "to go right or left) comes to tell you that [you should listen to them only] when they tell you right that is [really] right and left that is [really] left.
In other words, one is only required to listen to the Sages when, in fact, you know that the ruling is based on solid fact. If they make a ruling that is mistaken (telling you that right is left, for example), then you aren't under any obligation to follow them. I often find it interesting how whenever anyone brings up the topic of listening to the Gedolim, the Sifri is always mentioned, but the Yerushalmi is usually ignored.
But hey, we can say eilu v'eilu, right? He can follow his way if he likes and we can follow our way, right? Alas not. He continues...
Alas, I fear this exhortation will be lost due to the modern day Korachs who appeal to the masses to reject the edicts of those who seek only our best long-term interests.
Alas, it seems that someone who disagrees with anything a gadol says is a "Korach," no matter how sincere or well-intentioned he is in his belief that the Gadol may have made his ruling on facts in error. I find it interesting that Dr. Stern chose to use Korach to describe anyone to disagrees with him, since the dispute of Korach is given in the Mishna in Avos as the archetype of a dispute that is not l'shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven). If I read enough into his statement, I suppose I can say that he is implying that if you disagree with a Gadol, your opinion can never be truly l'shem shamayim, since you are just like Korach.
If that's the case, it's sad. Sad that some feel we've come to the point where differing opinions are bad and that one must shut off one's brain in order to be a good Jew. It's also sad to see that some people have to resort to ad hominem attacks (calling people with differing opinions "Korachs" to make their point.
The Wolf
(Just as a final point, there is one point in his letter that I agree with Dr. Stern on. If one disagrees with a Gadol and thinks his ruling is based on facts that aren't true, that's one thing. But it's no license to "malign our religious leaders." Disagreement with anyone, whether it be a Gadol or a layperson, should be done with respect.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What the Rebbetzin Should Say...
A 26-year old single woman wrote to Rebbetzin Jungries of the Jewish Press. She's frustrated and tired of being single.
Even though everyone predicted that she'd be among the first in her class to be married, she has, for whatever reason, failed to find her bashert. Since she wasn't busy raising a family, she decided to continue her secular education, becoming a lawyer. Now, she's finding that having a professional degree is further working against her in the shidduch world, as a professional degree seems to intimidate some men.
Four months ago, she met a guy on her own and they clicked. They share common interests, conversation flows, they enjoy each other's company. As she puts it, he just feels "right."
Of course, there is a fly in the ointment (if there wasn't, she wouldn't be writing to the Rebbetzin). As she writes:
So what, you may ask, is the problem? Why don’t I get engaged? Well, there is a problem, and it’s huge! – He’s not observant of the mitzvot. He did go to a day school through high school, but his commitment is marginal. Sad to say, he’s not really Shomer Shabbos, and while he doesn’t eat treif meat, he has no problem eating fish in a non-kosher restaurant. He certainly has a Shabbos table, makes Kiddush, etc., but more than that, I don’t know.
He tells me that at this point in his life, he is involved in many business dealings and cannot suddenly make a radical change, but he assures me that once we are married, he will become Shomer Shabbos and fully observant. He comes from a traditional background, so it’s not foreign to him. I tried to get him to a Torah class, but he just doesn’t have the time; he promised me that if we marry, hewould attend classes. On the plus side, he is very kind and considerate of me, but can I trust him to keep his promise?
When I discussed the matter with my parents, they were very frank with me and said that they would never have considered such a shidduch in the past, and they have strong reservations about his religious commitment, but they did say that because of my history – the difficulties that I have encountered in the past, my age, and the fact that my younger siblings are already married, they would not stand in my way even though they are very concerned.
In short, she wants to know if she can trust him to keep his word that he's going to keep his word to increase his level of observance after they get married. She's terrified of saying "yes" to him only to find that he can't/won't increase his level of observance, but she's also terrified of saying "no" in that she's afraid she may never again meet someone that she can connect to as she does with him.
I don't know what the Rebbetzin will say. Here's what I think she should respond to the unsigned letter:
Dear Single and Frustrated,
It must be terribly painful to watch your classmates and younger siblings all moving on with their lives, getting married and having children, while you seem to be stuck as a single. I hope and pray that HaShem will help you find your bashert as lead you into marriage as soon as possible so that you can start building a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.
That being said, let's turn our attention to your current suitor. Off the bat, I have to state that I do not know him personally, and, as such, cannot make any definitive statements about him. What I can, do, however, is hope to guide you in terms of general trends of behavior.
The general rule is that people do not change their basic natures because of marriage. There have been countless brides and grooms who have gotten married to someone whom they knew had a flaw that could be fatal to the marriage, with the understanding that the person would change after the wedding. Sad to say, in the majority of cases, this change does not occur. That's not to say that it's impossible, of course -- sometimes people do successfully change, but the percentage of those who do solely for the sake of marriage is exceedingly small. Since you know your beau far better than I do, you are the one best capable (aside from him, of course) of determining whether or not he will really change.
However, even if you determine that he cannot or will not change, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two of you can't be happy together. There are many people who get married to partners who may not be the "ideal" mate that they thought they were looking for, and yet turn out extremely happy. However, in order for that to work, you have to look deep inside yourself, and decide whether or not his religious deficiencies will cause your marriage to be unhappy. If it will, then you absolutely cannot enter into this marriage. On the other hand, if you think that you can live with his level of religious observance, then, by all means go ahead. You have to look deep inside yourself and decide just how important the level of religious observance is a potential spouse.
In addition, please do not take into account whether or not you will ever find another shidduch. It's a non-factor. If you can go with his level of observance, then you'll be happy. If you can't and you say "yes" anyway, you'll just end up miserable. Would you rather enter a miserable marriage or remain single? Most people, I believe, would choose the latter. Entering into a marriage that has a fatal flaw because you're afraid of not finding another is a bad move, in my opinion.
Lastly, while I think that it's nice that you are going to your parents for advice regarding this particular difficult question, I think that at age 26, you are old enough to decide for yourself. You no longer need your parent's permission to marry. I'm glad to see that they are willing to let you decide and determine your own future.
I wish you lots of success and happiness in the future, whether it's with this particular young man or with another.
Even though everyone predicted that she'd be among the first in her class to be married, she has, for whatever reason, failed to find her bashert. Since she wasn't busy raising a family, she decided to continue her secular education, becoming a lawyer. Now, she's finding that having a professional degree is further working against her in the shidduch world, as a professional degree seems to intimidate some men.
Four months ago, she met a guy on her own and they clicked. They share common interests, conversation flows, they enjoy each other's company. As she puts it, he just feels "right."
Of course, there is a fly in the ointment (if there wasn't, she wouldn't be writing to the Rebbetzin). As she writes:
So what, you may ask, is the problem? Why don’t I get engaged? Well, there is a problem, and it’s huge! – He’s not observant of the mitzvot. He did go to a day school through high school, but his commitment is marginal. Sad to say, he’s not really Shomer Shabbos, and while he doesn’t eat treif meat, he has no problem eating fish in a non-kosher restaurant. He certainly has a Shabbos table, makes Kiddush, etc., but more than that, I don’t know.
He tells me that at this point in his life, he is involved in many business dealings and cannot suddenly make a radical change, but he assures me that once we are married, he will become Shomer Shabbos and fully observant. He comes from a traditional background, so it’s not foreign to him. I tried to get him to a Torah class, but he just doesn’t have the time; he promised me that if we marry, hewould attend classes. On the plus side, he is very kind and considerate of me, but can I trust him to keep his promise?
When I discussed the matter with my parents, they were very frank with me and said that they would never have considered such a shidduch in the past, and they have strong reservations about his religious commitment, but they did say that because of my history – the difficulties that I have encountered in the past, my age, and the fact that my younger siblings are already married, they would not stand in my way even though they are very concerned.
In short, she wants to know if she can trust him to keep his word that he's going to keep his word to increase his level of observance after they get married. She's terrified of saying "yes" to him only to find that he can't/won't increase his level of observance, but she's also terrified of saying "no" in that she's afraid she may never again meet someone that she can connect to as she does with him.
I don't know what the Rebbetzin will say. Here's what I think she should respond to the unsigned letter:
Dear Single and Frustrated,
It must be terribly painful to watch your classmates and younger siblings all moving on with their lives, getting married and having children, while you seem to be stuck as a single. I hope and pray that HaShem will help you find your bashert as lead you into marriage as soon as possible so that you can start building a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel.
That being said, let's turn our attention to your current suitor. Off the bat, I have to state that I do not know him personally, and, as such, cannot make any definitive statements about him. What I can, do, however, is hope to guide you in terms of general trends of behavior.
The general rule is that people do not change their basic natures because of marriage. There have been countless brides and grooms who have gotten married to someone whom they knew had a flaw that could be fatal to the marriage, with the understanding that the person would change after the wedding. Sad to say, in the majority of cases, this change does not occur. That's not to say that it's impossible, of course -- sometimes people do successfully change, but the percentage of those who do solely for the sake of marriage is exceedingly small. Since you know your beau far better than I do, you are the one best capable (aside from him, of course) of determining whether or not he will really change.
However, even if you determine that he cannot or will not change, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two of you can't be happy together. There are many people who get married to partners who may not be the "ideal" mate that they thought they were looking for, and yet turn out extremely happy. However, in order for that to work, you have to look deep inside yourself, and decide whether or not his religious deficiencies will cause your marriage to be unhappy. If it will, then you absolutely cannot enter into this marriage. On the other hand, if you think that you can live with his level of religious observance, then, by all means go ahead. You have to look deep inside yourself and decide just how important the level of religious observance is a potential spouse.
In addition, please do not take into account whether or not you will ever find another shidduch. It's a non-factor. If you can go with his level of observance, then you'll be happy. If you can't and you say "yes" anyway, you'll just end up miserable. Would you rather enter a miserable marriage or remain single? Most people, I believe, would choose the latter. Entering into a marriage that has a fatal flaw because you're afraid of not finding another is a bad move, in my opinion.
Lastly, while I think that it's nice that you are going to your parents for advice regarding this particular difficult question, I think that at age 26, you are old enough to decide for yourself. You no longer need your parent's permission to marry. I'm glad to see that they are willing to let you decide and determine your own future.
I wish you lots of success and happiness in the future, whether it's with this particular young man or with another.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Road To Hell...
I read with interest the Letters To The Editor in this week's Jewish Press. Many of the letters were in response to Rabbi Horowitz's excellent column "You Might End Up Dead." Most of the letters (including one from Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum) supported Rabbi Horowitz's point regarding extremist violence from some Hareidim. However, there was one letter that, while not condoning the violence, seeks to mitigate it. Here's the letter:
I am amused by the sanctimonious expressions of outrage directed against those individuals who attacked that lady on the bus in Israel. While I cannot condone taking the law into one’s own hands, there is an incontrovertible point to be made that one of the Jewish tradition’s important messages to the world is that men and women not married to each other should not mingle with each other.
Rejecting violence is one thing, but let’s not indulge in political correctness at the same time. The young men in question obviously burn with the love of Torah. Their hearts are in the right place, even if they overreacted in their determination to enforce the standards and morality of our Holy Torah.
Yitzchok Melnick
Jerusalem
In short, he's saying that the extremists deserve sympathy because "their hearts were in the right place." Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.
Firstly, there is the question of Mr. Melnick's premise -- that men and women should not mingle with one another. While I'm grant him the obvious point that the Torah truly does discourage mingling of the sexes, there is the very significant question of what represents "mingling."
I travel by public transportation in New York City just about every day. There is mixed seating (and standing) in the subways, but I would hardly call what happens there "mingling." Over 99% of the time I have no interaction with any other person in the subways and buses, despite sitting next to or standing in front of them. Certainly no one has *ever* started up anything that could even remotely touch upon what the Torah would legitimately look upon as inappropriate mixing of the sexes. (Now that could be because I'm short, fat, balding and somewhat dumpy looking, but my general impression is that this is the case for most people.) I don't think that sitting next to a woman on the train or bus is any more "mingling" than passing her while walking in the street. If it were, there would be people seeking to have a p'sak passed that riding on the subway is forbidden. To my knowledge, no one has even attempted such a thing. Thousands of Orthodox Jews ride the subways every day without any question of whether or not it is considered "mingling."
In addition, while in this case, the chayal and the woman weren't married to each other (and weren't even companions), I doubt that even if the couple were married (where we can all agree that "mingling" is allowed) that the extremists would have left her alone (provided, of course, that the husband looked like the type who wouldn't/couldn't fight back). I'm fairly certain that had they been in a situation where no one could question the propriety of them sitting together (husband/wife, son/mother, etc.) that the extremists would have made trouble if they could.
Lastly, I want to address Mr. Melnick's point about their "hearts being in the right place." In this, he's dead wrong again. They weren't "enforcing the standards and morality of our Holy Torah" but rather their own extremist version of it. While they may have thought that "their hearts were in the right place" and that they had "good intentions," we all know where that road goes...
The Wolf
I am amused by the sanctimonious expressions of outrage directed against those individuals who attacked that lady on the bus in Israel. While I cannot condone taking the law into one’s own hands, there is an incontrovertible point to be made that one of the Jewish tradition’s important messages to the world is that men and women not married to each other should not mingle with each other.
Rejecting violence is one thing, but let’s not indulge in political correctness at the same time. The young men in question obviously burn with the love of Torah. Their hearts are in the right place, even if they overreacted in their determination to enforce the standards and morality of our Holy Torah.
Yitzchok Melnick
Jerusalem
In short, he's saying that the extremists deserve sympathy because "their hearts were in the right place." Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.
Firstly, there is the question of Mr. Melnick's premise -- that men and women should not mingle with one another. While I'm grant him the obvious point that the Torah truly does discourage mingling of the sexes, there is the very significant question of what represents "mingling."
I travel by public transportation in New York City just about every day. There is mixed seating (and standing) in the subways, but I would hardly call what happens there "mingling." Over 99% of the time I have no interaction with any other person in the subways and buses, despite sitting next to or standing in front of them. Certainly no one has *ever* started up anything that could even remotely touch upon what the Torah would legitimately look upon as inappropriate mixing of the sexes. (Now that could be because I'm short, fat, balding and somewhat dumpy looking, but my general impression is that this is the case for most people.) I don't think that sitting next to a woman on the train or bus is any more "mingling" than passing her while walking in the street. If it were, there would be people seeking to have a p'sak passed that riding on the subway is forbidden. To my knowledge, no one has even attempted such a thing. Thousands of Orthodox Jews ride the subways every day without any question of whether or not it is considered "mingling."
In addition, while in this case, the chayal and the woman weren't married to each other (and weren't even companions), I doubt that even if the couple were married (where we can all agree that "mingling" is allowed) that the extremists would have left her alone (provided, of course, that the husband looked like the type who wouldn't/couldn't fight back). I'm fairly certain that had they been in a situation where no one could question the propriety of them sitting together (husband/wife, son/mother, etc.) that the extremists would have made trouble if they could.
Lastly, I want to address Mr. Melnick's point about their "hearts being in the right place." In this, he's dead wrong again. They weren't "enforcing the standards and morality of our Holy Torah" but rather their own extremist version of it. While they may have thought that "their hearts were in the right place" and that they had "good intentions," we all know where that road goes...
The Wolf
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Geocentrism: Jewish Press Readers Let Amnon Goldberg Have It
Last week, Amnon Goldberg wrote a letter to the Jewish Press advocating that the hard-geocentric model (i.e. that the earth is the center of the universe, not just the solar system) as the Torah-true model. I blogged about one little absurdity to the theory.
Well, in today's Jewish Press, there are six letters to the editor, all of which concern the extended debate surrounding Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Of the six letters, five take issue with Amnon Goldberg's letter and theory. Several of them even brought up the point that I made in my post, that a "rotating universe" would require most objects in the universe to zoom by at speeds far faster than the speed of light.
The Wolf
Well, in today's Jewish Press, there are six letters to the editor, all of which concern the extended debate surrounding Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Of the six letters, five take issue with Amnon Goldberg's letter and theory. Several of them even brought up the point that I made in my post, that a "rotating universe" would require most objects in the universe to zoom by at speeds far faster than the speed of light.
The Wolf
Sunday, October 07, 2007
A Quick Take on Geocentrism
This past week's Jewish Press had a letter from Amnon Goldberg, of Sefad, Israel, advocating geocentrism as the Torah-true view of cosmology. He relies on Mach's Principle (something that has never been fully accepted by the scientific community) to make the point. He states:
Mach’s Principle shows that a universe going around the Earth every 24 hours will produce exactly the same effects as Foucault’s Pendulum, Coriolis forces, earth bulge, weather patterns etc., as an Earth rotating in its axis every 24 hours.
Now, I'm not going to claim that I fully understand Mach's Principle, but one of the main problems I have with it is this:
The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way. It lies aproximately 2.5 million light-years away from us. If one maintains that the entire universe rotates around the earth every day, that means that the Andromeda Galaxy would speed along, making a 15.7 million light-year journey every day (circumference = pi * diameter)*. That results in a speed *much* faster than the speed of light. And objects that are even further away would have to travel even faster to make it around the earth every day. To me, a rotating earth sounds much more reasonable.
The Wolf
(*Yes, I know the path that the galaxy would take would be an elipse and not a circle -- I just used the formula for the circumference of a circle as an approximation.)
Mach’s Principle shows that a universe going around the Earth every 24 hours will produce exactly the same effects as Foucault’s Pendulum, Coriolis forces, earth bulge, weather patterns etc., as an Earth rotating in its axis every 24 hours.
Now, I'm not going to claim that I fully understand Mach's Principle, but one of the main problems I have with it is this:
The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way. It lies aproximately 2.5 million light-years away from us. If one maintains that the entire universe rotates around the earth every day, that means that the Andromeda Galaxy would speed along, making a 15.7 million light-year journey every day (circumference = pi * diameter)*. That results in a speed *much* faster than the speed of light. And objects that are even further away would have to travel even faster to make it around the earth every day. To me, a rotating earth sounds much more reasonable.
The Wolf
(*Yes, I know the path that the galaxy would take would be an elipse and not a circle -- I just used the formula for the circumference of a circle as an approximation.)
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Singles -- Learn to Think For Yourselves!
I think that Cheryl Kupfer is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists over at The Jewish Press. Her column today (again about shidduchim) hit a nerve with me.
In this week's column, she relates the story of a not-so-young woman in her 30s (and closer to 40) who was still single. Her friend, a shadchan (matchmaker), redt her (proposed a date) to a never-been-married man. Although she wasn't exactly what he was looking for, he apparently thought that there might be some possibility there agreed to see her. Once he agreed, the shadchan approached the woman about the date. What happened next? Ms. Kupfer tells us:
Once this “girl’ was told that this young man was interested, she got in touch with a mentor who is involved in a shidduch group and who, no doubt had been looking out for her. This woman, however, after being given the boy’s information “just didn’t see it” and suggested to this almost 40-year-old not go out with him. She turned down the shidduch.
What was the reaction from the shadchan?
“Do you know how many people I never thought to set up because ‘I didn’t see it’ are now happily married?” my friend exclaimed, visibly agitated. “What would it have hurt if she just met with him? What did she have to lose?”
Lest you think that this is an isolated case, I can tell you that it is not. I have seen similar cases with my own eyes. I know of a woman who is in her early 30s and will not date someone unless her mentor (a man whom I know and who really does have her best interests in mind) checks him out and gives the OK.
Whenever I hear cases like these, I always ask myself the following questions:
1. It's a date, not a marriage proposal! As long as you're reasonably sure he's not an axe-murderer or a rapist, why not go on a date? What (aside from an evening) have you got to lose?
2. Don't you think you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not a particular gentleman is right for you? Assuming that you are a mature, responsible adult, you are fully capable of deciding what qualities you need in a mate and asking the pertinent questions yourself.
3. At your age, you can't afford to be too choosy. If your goal is, indeed, to get married, realize that after the age of 30, there will be fewer and fewer men knocking at your door. Take every opportunity you get to go out.
Now, I'll admit that maybe I'm not seeing the problem from the singles' point of view. Thank God, I've been happily married for a long time and never had to put up with the "shidduch dating" scene. So, maybe there is a side of this that I am missing. If anyone is aware of it, please feel free to write in and educate me. But I've always been a firm believer in doing everything possible to get unmarried men and women together to meet and marry. I believe that we should be doing everything we can to facilitate meetings, not block them. Unless you find out that the guy or girl have some *serious* defect (polygamist, etc.) what's the harm in just going out on the date? The worst that can happen is that you have a lousy time and the evening was a waste. But with the potential upside is so great, I don't see how you can *not* go.
Ms. Kupfer ends her column with a similar story of another older single who lost a potential chance because* someone else* thought the shidduch wasn't good enough.
I am reminded of a phone call I made many years ago that was intercepted by the mother of an older single (still unmarried) who I wanted to set up with a divorced father of one. She, too, was in her late 30s. Her mother asked why I was calling, and being polite and a bit stupid, I told her that I had a shidduch for her daughter.
When she heard that the man was divorced with a child, SHE nixed it, with an indignant tone in her voice that I would even think of setting up her child with such a man. She too, like the mentor above, was wearing rose-colored glasses that had been dipped in the skewed waters of Denial.
How about letting her decide? True, maybe she wasn't looking for someone with a child, but perhaps she might have liked the man enough anyway? Would it have been so bad to even suggest a date and that she find out? How could she know that this man might not have been perfect for her daughter?
Personally, I think that we need to make some changes. We need to have older singles begin to think for themselves. We need to show them that they are perfectly capable of evaluating whether or not to go out on a date with someone. They don't require anyone's permission.
Secondly, we need to instruct mentors and parents of older singles to simply stay out of the way. Unless there is some really, really, really solid reason why the match wouldn't work, then they should advise them to go out and have fun. Older singles don't need a gatekeeper anymore -- they can make their own decisions.
The Wolf
In this week's column, she relates the story of a not-so-young woman in her 30s (and closer to 40) who was still single. Her friend, a shadchan (matchmaker), redt her (proposed a date) to a never-been-married man. Although she wasn't exactly what he was looking for, he apparently thought that there might be some possibility there agreed to see her. Once he agreed, the shadchan approached the woman about the date. What happened next? Ms. Kupfer tells us:
Once this “girl’ was told that this young man was interested, she got in touch with a mentor who is involved in a shidduch group and who, no doubt had been looking out for her. This woman, however, after being given the boy’s information “just didn’t see it” and suggested to this almost 40-year-old not go out with him. She turned down the shidduch.
What was the reaction from the shadchan?
“Do you know how many people I never thought to set up because ‘I didn’t see it’ are now happily married?” my friend exclaimed, visibly agitated. “What would it have hurt if she just met with him? What did she have to lose?”
Lest you think that this is an isolated case, I can tell you that it is not. I have seen similar cases with my own eyes. I know of a woman who is in her early 30s and will not date someone unless her mentor (a man whom I know and who really does have her best interests in mind) checks him out and gives the OK.
Whenever I hear cases like these, I always ask myself the following questions:
1. It's a date, not a marriage proposal! As long as you're reasonably sure he's not an axe-murderer or a rapist, why not go on a date? What (aside from an evening) have you got to lose?
2. Don't you think you're old enough to decide for yourself whether or not a particular gentleman is right for you? Assuming that you are a mature, responsible adult, you are fully capable of deciding what qualities you need in a mate and asking the pertinent questions yourself.
3. At your age, you can't afford to be too choosy. If your goal is, indeed, to get married, realize that after the age of 30, there will be fewer and fewer men knocking at your door. Take every opportunity you get to go out.
Now, I'll admit that maybe I'm not seeing the problem from the singles' point of view. Thank God, I've been happily married for a long time and never had to put up with the "shidduch dating" scene. So, maybe there is a side of this that I am missing. If anyone is aware of it, please feel free to write in and educate me. But I've always been a firm believer in doing everything possible to get unmarried men and women together to meet and marry. I believe that we should be doing everything we can to facilitate meetings, not block them. Unless you find out that the guy or girl have some *serious* defect (polygamist, etc.) what's the harm in just going out on the date? The worst that can happen is that you have a lousy time and the evening was a waste. But with the potential upside is so great, I don't see how you can *not* go.
Ms. Kupfer ends her column with a similar story of another older single who lost a potential chance because* someone else* thought the shidduch wasn't good enough.
I am reminded of a phone call I made many years ago that was intercepted by the mother of an older single (still unmarried) who I wanted to set up with a divorced father of one. She, too, was in her late 30s. Her mother asked why I was calling, and being polite and a bit stupid, I told her that I had a shidduch for her daughter.
When she heard that the man was divorced with a child, SHE nixed it, with an indignant tone in her voice that I would even think of setting up her child with such a man. She too, like the mentor above, was wearing rose-colored glasses that had been dipped in the skewed waters of Denial.
How about letting her decide? True, maybe she wasn't looking for someone with a child, but perhaps she might have liked the man enough anyway? Would it have been so bad to even suggest a date and that she find out? How could she know that this man might not have been perfect for her daughter?
Personally, I think that we need to make some changes. We need to have older singles begin to think for themselves. We need to show them that they are perfectly capable of evaluating whether or not to go out on a date with someone. They don't require anyone's permission.
Secondly, we need to instruct mentors and parents of older singles to simply stay out of the way. Unless there is some really, really, really solid reason why the match wouldn't work, then they should advise them to go out and have fun. Older singles don't need a gatekeeper anymore -- they can make their own decisions.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)