A rather incredible article appeared on the Dei'ah veDibur site this week entitled Bank of Israel: Entering Workforce Does Not Ensure Escape from Poverty. The article tries to make the case that, for chareidim in Israel, leaving welfare is a bad thing and that families that do leave welfare do not end up better off financially.
The article quotes MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (the Knesset Finance Committee Chairman) who states:
"The country is lying to its citizens. Once again it has been shown that leaving the ranks of welfare recipients and joining the job market does not change the situation and people who work very hard for their living are unable to make ends meet."
He also goes on to say (emphasis mine):
"Emerging from the cycle of poverty requires an ability to get accepted to one of the positions that brings in tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels per month. Going to work solves nothing; that's all nonsense. In the State of Israel, today someone who wants to get out of the cycle of poverty has to network with the elites and the power centers just to get a decent salary that will really enable him to make a respectable living."
In other words, according to Rabbi Gafni, working is worthless. We're all better off just increasing welfare payments to people so that they can sustain themselves. I don't know if his comment that you need "tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels" of shekels per month to get out of poverty is accurate (it sounds high to me), but let's say, for the moment, that he's correct (given chareidi family sizes). Assuming a shekel is worth about a quarter (it's actually a bit more right now), that's the equivalent of saying that you need "twenty five hundreds to twenty five thousands dollars per month" to escape poverty. Of course, jobs paying twenty five grand a month are scarce... I don't have one, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S. But what Rabbi Gafni is missing (or, IMHO, purposely avoiding) is that people on welfare, when they enter the workforce, generally start by talking entry-level jobs that are meant for unskilled workers. As their skills and experience increase, workers will be able to begin commanding higher salaries. When I started working, I was earning very, very little. However, now that I've been working for quite a few years and have invested in some training and education, I now command a much higher salary. Had I said, twenty years ago, that it doesn't pay to work because I can't get my present salary, I would have been an idiot. Very few people get to start at the top... most of us have to work our way up through the ranks, just like everyone else. That means you "pay your dues" by working for a while at low wages and then, with hard work, experience and a bit of Siyata D'Shmaya (Divine Providence), you will begin to earn better wages.
Of course, all this is predicated on one assumption -- that the person is employable and has job skills that he can bring to the market. Rabbi Gafni makes the following observation concerning the ability to earn a salary (again, emphasis mine):
"The problem is especially acute in the chareidi public. The state does not recognize the years of yeshiva and seminary study as it recognizes the years of study of its secular citizens. As a result both husband and wife who work earn paltry salaries, and are unable to extract the family from the cycle of poverty. On the other hand there are people earning as much as an entire neighborhood."
And here, Rabbi Gafni has the solution to the problem staring him in the face and he willfully chooses to ignore it. The problem, very simply, is education. When people are not educated with any skills (other than being a rebbe/teacher), there is little chance that they will be able to command a "good salary" when they enter the workforce. In order to command a "good salary," a worker has to be able to show that s/he will add at least that much value to the enterprise and have skills that differentiate him/herself from the other people seeking employment. Almost anyone off the street can answer a phone or man a cash register -- and so those jobs pay very little. On the other hand, since not everyone can hold the job of a skilled worker (be it computer programmer, plumber, doctor, etc.), people in those professions earn more.
In the ultimate of ironies, Rabbi Gafni even brings an example of a high earner and, instead of recognizing why the person has a high salary, he engages in petty envy. He states (once more, emphasis mine):
"We considered the possibility of setting up a ministerial committee to discuss the inconceivable wage gaps that exist in this country. We need a far-reaching change and a totally new attitude. There are enormous class gaps in this country that will turn into an existential social problem. The salary the CEO of Bank Mizrachi receives is enough to sustain a whole street in Bnei Brak. These class disparities have led to very difficult situations throughout history in all places, and it is imperative that the government comes to its senses on time."
I don't know who the CEO of Bank Mizrachi is, and I certainly don't know his salary or whether or not it can really sustain a street in Bnei Brak. But I do know this: he probably holds an MBA and/or an advanced degree in finance. He probably didn't walk in off the street on his first day of work and say "I want to be the CEO." He probably spent years working at less prestigious jobs, building up his experience. He probably put in a lot of hours over the years and earned the respect of his peers in the banking industry. He probably spent quite a bit of time networking professionally. In other words, the CEO of Bank Mizrachi earns a large salary because he has worked himself up to that point, not because it was magically given to him.
Rabbi Gafni looks at the CEO of Bank Mizrachi and purposely ignores the very reason for his success. Instead of crediting his education, skill and hard work, he says that you have to "network with the elites and the power centers" to get a decent job. As if anyone could get a CEO job (or any job that requires skills) just simply by knowing an "elite" or someone in a "power center." He purposely (IMHO) ignores the importance of education and job skills and says that it's better to simply sit back, give up on any chance for developing job skills and get a welfare check from the government.
I find it utterly ironic that Rabbi Gafni is complaining about poverty in the chareidi community when it's attitudes like his that are the chief reason for it. When school systems are purposely designed NOT to teach any job skills and the society is set up to actively discourage getting an education that will lead to such skills, there can be little doubt that the outcome will be continued poverty. In short, Rabbi Gafni is like someone who ensures that there are no firefighters and then complains when his house burns down and no one was there to put out the fire.
The Wolf
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Friday, April 09, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tznius Lunacy Abounds
From the tznius craziness files this week:
Don't Sing So Well...
A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.
So, what happened?
my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.
A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?
(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing
Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:
Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.
and (emphasis added)
Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.
From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.
Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."
Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.
The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.
The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood
Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”
Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?
Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.
The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:
There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C
Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder
And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.
I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.
The Wolf
UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.
Don't Sing So Well...
A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.
So, what happened?
my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.
A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?
(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing
Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:
Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.
and (emphasis added)
Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.
From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.
Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."
Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.
The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.
The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood
Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”
Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?
Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.
The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:
There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C
Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder
And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.
I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.
The Wolf
UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Stupid Comment Of The Day
Sometimes, you just have to wonder if people ever think before they type or speak. Case in point from the comments thread of this VIN post. One commentator (#6) actually said:
A characteristic of goyim is that they fight among themselves. Their lack of achdus is a hallmark trait.
Mr. Kettle, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Pot. He has a lovely word for you.
The Wolf
Friday, July 31, 2009
Don't Leave Little Kids Alone... Even Just For A Minute!
Vos Iz Neias is reporting that a Boro Park couple was arrested in New Jersey for leaving their two year old daughter alone in a car while they went into the mini-mart there.
I would think that most rational people understand that it is simply wrong to leave little children alone in a car for any length of time. It doesn't matter if it's "only two minutes." It doesn't matter if the kid is sleeping and you don't want to wake him/her up. It doesn't matter how safe you think the area is. It's simply wrong... period.
What I find amazing is that there are commentators on VIN who seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable to leave your child in the car if a parent needs to go to the bathroom or run into the store to pay gas, etc.
It doesn't take very long for someone to break into the car and either kidnap a child or steal the entire car (kid and all). The same people who leave their kid in the car would never leave a computer, a wallet or an open bag of cash on the front seat, but think nothing of leaving a child strapped in.
One commentator on VIN tried to make the point that the analogy of a child to a valuable item or cash is flawed since a child (unlike the other items) has no value to a common thief. That may be true - but a child certainly has value to a child molester or a kidnapper. And the car itself has value to a car thief who may take the car not caring or even realizing that there is a child strapped in the back.
It never ceases to amaze me how irresponsible some people can be with regard to their children. Back in April 2006, I posted about a similar event that happened to me personally.
It was Chol HaMoed Pesach and I was at the Museum of Natural History with my kids. The kids had taken a bathroom break (my kids are older and can go to the bathroom by themselves) and I was waiting outside. While I was there, a frum man comes over to me, asks me to watch his four or five year old daughter, and goes into the bathroom. I did the guy the favor, but afterwards I thought about it -- how did he know that I wasn't a kidnapper? Just because I had a kippah on my head, was wearing a white shirt and had four days of beard growth didn't mean that I wasn't a danger to his daughter. While he was in the bathroom, I could have simply ran off with her and who knows what could have happened. Fortunately for him, I'm not that sort of person -- but he didn't know that. How could he be so irresponsible as to leave his kid with a total stranger?
The Wolf
(Image credit: Ihasahotdog.com. Hat tip: Zach Kessin.)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
I Guess I Have To Rename My Blog...
As I'm sure you've read by now, an official in Israel has been referring to the swine flu epidemic as 'Mexican flu." In the statement of R. Yaakov Litzman:
"We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu in order not to have to pronounce the word swine."
And yet, Rabbi Litzman, you used it in that sentence. Twice. And, with all the commenting that people have made about your silly statement, you have caused the word to be said many, many more times. :)
The W***
(Hat tip: made public upon request of the person who emailed me a link)
"We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu in order not to have to pronounce the word swine."
And yet, Rabbi Litzman, you used it in that sentence. Twice. And, with all the commenting that people have made about your silly statement, you have caused the word to be said many, many more times. :)
The W***
(Hat tip: made public upon request of the person who emailed me a link)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Another Great "It Was A Frame Job" post...
Dr. Mazeltov Borukhova was sentenced to life in prison (without the possibility of parole) for hiring her cousin to murder her husband. The motive for the killing was that she had just (days before) lost a custody battle to her estranged husband, Dr. Daniel Malakov.
Truth be told, the evidence against her was pretty solid and it was pretty much an open and shut case. A sad story all around, to be sure.
Of course, as in a case like this, you'll have some people who believe (what else?) that she was framed by the authorities. A poster on Vos Iz Neias (Tuvia, #53) made the following comment:
We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case. As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative. Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives. We do not know a lot of details about the case. Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case? Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences? Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it? When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.
Oy... where do I start.
OK, let's take it from the top.
We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case.
For starters, *we* aren't judging her - the state of New York is. And the state of New York *can* judge her. Indeed, not only can they, but they are required to under the 7 Noachide mitzvos. Or did you think that the civil authorities were supposed to turn her over to a bais din?
As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative.
There is direct evidence regarding her cousin -- Mikhail Mallayev shot Malakov in broad daylight in a park in front of witnesses, who testified at the trial. As for her, there is plenty of evidence to show that she was in on the plot too. And, if you're going to tell me that you require only eyewitness testimony, then I assume that you're in favor of turning loose someone who murders a Jew with no eyewitnesses?
Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives.
But she's not being judged under a Torah standard. There is no court set up to judge such a case. And, let's not forget, a properly constituted bais din had extralegal ways of getting rid of people whom they felt should be executed for their capital crimes but could not be executed properly for one techinical reason or another. (I think I have a post about that coming up in the next week or so.)
We do not know a lot of details about the case.
Actually, we know a great deal about this case. On a scale of 1 to 10 regarding knowledge of the murder case, this one's at least a 9.
Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case?
Let's look at it this way. Police officers get a salary because someone has to pay them to do their jobs -- just like any other position on earth. Likewise, doing a good job earns you a promotion, again - just like any other position on earth. What sort of system would you have? One where the police don't get paid and get promoted for NOT closing cases?
Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences?
No, for several reasons. First of all, rabbis, by and large, are not forensic experts capable of judging evidence in a murder. Secondly, it's not their job to do so. Thirdly, I suppose you expect the police to bring in a rabbi when it's a Jew on trial, but not an imam when it's a Muslim on trial?
Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it?
See above... she's not being judged on a Torah standard because she lives in a time and place where that is not applicable. Or, is it your opinion (since there is no Jewish court capable of trying such cases) that no Jew should ever be put on trial anywhere in the world for anything?
When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.
Ah, yes. The DA planted the evidence. I suppose he also killed Dr. Malakov, bribed the witnesses, stole Dr. Borukhova's and Mr. Mallayev's phones, made the phone callsand text messages between them, returned them and then took $20,000 out of her bank account and gave it to Mr. Mallayev, just to show that a Jew could kill someone.
Tell me, sir, do you actually think before you post things?
The Wolf
UPDATE: That's what I get for posting from memory. The contact was 65 calls between her and the murderer in the days preceeding the murder, not text messages. My apologies for the error.
Truth be told, the evidence against her was pretty solid and it was pretty much an open and shut case. A sad story all around, to be sure.
Of course, as in a case like this, you'll have some people who believe (what else?) that she was framed by the authorities. A poster on Vos Iz Neias (Tuvia, #53) made the following comment:
We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case. As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative. Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives. We do not know a lot of details about the case. Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case? Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences? Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it? When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.
Oy... where do I start.
OK, let's take it from the top.
We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case.
For starters, *we* aren't judging her - the state of New York is. And the state of New York *can* judge her. Indeed, not only can they, but they are required to under the 7 Noachide mitzvos. Or did you think that the civil authorities were supposed to turn her over to a bais din?
As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative.
There is direct evidence regarding her cousin -- Mikhail Mallayev shot Malakov in broad daylight in a park in front of witnesses, who testified at the trial. As for her, there is plenty of evidence to show that she was in on the plot too. And, if you're going to tell me that you require only eyewitness testimony, then I assume that you're in favor of turning loose someone who murders a Jew with no eyewitnesses?
Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives.
But she's not being judged under a Torah standard. There is no court set up to judge such a case. And, let's not forget, a properly constituted bais din had extralegal ways of getting rid of people whom they felt should be executed for their capital crimes but could not be executed properly for one techinical reason or another. (I think I have a post about that coming up in the next week or so.)
We do not know a lot of details about the case.
Actually, we know a great deal about this case. On a scale of 1 to 10 regarding knowledge of the murder case, this one's at least a 9.
Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case?
Let's look at it this way. Police officers get a salary because someone has to pay them to do their jobs -- just like any other position on earth. Likewise, doing a good job earns you a promotion, again - just like any other position on earth. What sort of system would you have? One where the police don't get paid and get promoted for NOT closing cases?
Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences?
No, for several reasons. First of all, rabbis, by and large, are not forensic experts capable of judging evidence in a murder. Secondly, it's not their job to do so. Thirdly, I suppose you expect the police to bring in a rabbi when it's a Jew on trial, but not an imam when it's a Muslim on trial?
Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it?
See above... she's not being judged on a Torah standard because she lives in a time and place where that is not applicable. Or, is it your opinion (since there is no Jewish court capable of trying such cases) that no Jew should ever be put on trial anywhere in the world for anything?
When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.
Ah, yes. The DA planted the evidence. I suppose he also killed Dr. Malakov, bribed the witnesses, stole Dr. Borukhova's and Mr. Mallayev's phones, made the phone calls
Tell me, sir, do you actually think before you post things?
The Wolf
UPDATE: That's what I get for posting from memory. The contact was 65 calls between her and the murderer in the days preceeding the murder, not text messages. My apologies for the error.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
This Must Be The Stupidest Tznius Story I've Ever Heard
From a Chabadtalk thread:
Well mcp, just for the record, a few years ago I was driving and I almost crashed because I was driving with my eyes closed, only because I tried to avoid seeing a couple of young women who were very poorly dressed...
I find it extremely interesting. Of course, one is required to be martyred rather than engage in prohibited sexual relations. The gemara even takes it to an extreme where they prohibited a dying man from hearing a married woman's voice. But, in that instance, there was no danger to anyone except the potential sinner. And yet, this guy knows better*... because he's not only willing to risk his own life by closing his eyes while driving, but he's also willing to risk the lives of his passengers and anyone else on the road.
Talk about being a tzaddik on yenem's cheshbon (someone else's account)!
The Wolf
* Actually, he doesn't know better. The halacha is that while you are required to die rather than sin sexually, you are not required (or permitted) to kill someone to prevent them from sinning sexually. If this applies to someone who is actually sinning, it certainly applies to someone who is an innocent passenger in a car or walking or driving on the road. Or that's my take on the matter. However, I'm not a rav. If anyone knows otherwise, please feel free to say so.
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
Well mcp, just for the record, a few years ago I was driving and I almost crashed because I was driving with my eyes closed, only because I tried to avoid seeing a couple of young women who were very poorly dressed...
I find it extremely interesting. Of course, one is required to be martyred rather than engage in prohibited sexual relations. The gemara even takes it to an extreme where they prohibited a dying man from hearing a married woman's voice. But, in that instance, there was no danger to anyone except the potential sinner. And yet, this guy knows better*... because he's not only willing to risk his own life by closing his eyes while driving, but he's also willing to risk the lives of his passengers and anyone else on the road.
Talk about being a tzaddik on yenem's cheshbon (someone else's account)!
The Wolf
* Actually, he doesn't know better. The halacha is that while you are required to die rather than sin sexually, you are not required (or permitted) to kill someone to prevent them from sinning sexually. If this applies to someone who is actually sinning, it certainly applies to someone who is an innocent passenger in a car or walking or driving on the road. Or that's my take on the matter. However, I'm not a rav. If anyone knows otherwise, please feel free to say so.
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Paging Arthur C. Clarke...
Arthur C. Clarke, the famous science fiction writer, developed three "laws" of prediction, known as Clarke's Three Laws. The third of those laws is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In other words, if you were to find yourself in Biblical times with a computer, to the people native to that time, the fact that the computer works will seem as magic to them.
Apparently, this law holds today as well. From YNet:
A recently released album containing songs performed by legendary cantors has been causing turmoil among the ultra-Orthodox community due to the simple fact that the performers are all dead.
Apparently, the concept of manipulating audio recordings is too advanced for some people, because they
flooded the company with questions and complaints: "How is it that the cantor knows to wait for the orchestra? There must be some sort of spell here – is this séance? Does the Halacha allow tampering with the voices of the dead?"
I just don't know what to say... I'm at a complete loss for words.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Blog in Dm.
Apparently, this law holds today as well. From YNet:
A recently released album containing songs performed by legendary cantors has been causing turmoil among the ultra-Orthodox community due to the simple fact that the performers are all dead.
Apparently, the concept of manipulating audio recordings is too advanced for some people, because they
flooded the company with questions and complaints: "How is it that the cantor knows to wait for the orchestra? There must be some sort of spell here – is this séance? Does the Halacha allow tampering with the voices of the dead?"
I just don't know what to say... I'm at a complete loss for words.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Blog in Dm.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Marriage And More Nonsense About Last Names
An.... interesting editorial appeared on CrownHeights.info this week. Authored by Rabbi Israel Krasnianski, it lashes out against the big problem that exists in our world... married women retaining their maiden names.
Now, personally, I think it's all a big bunch of nonsense. I don't really think it matters one way or the other what names a woman uses. To me, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for a woman to keep her maiden name and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to adopt the husband's. When Eeees and I got married, I told her that I had no objection to her keeping her maiden name if she wanted to. I had no intention of changing my name to her maiden name, but I could have if I wanted to as well.
However, I find it kind of funny when articles such as this one pop up from time to time. This particular editorial had quite a few "gems" that I'd like to share with you. Let's start with this one:
Many studies have shown, as a matter of statistical fact, higher divorce rates where woman retain their maiden names.
To be perfectly fair and honest, I don't know if this is true or not. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that it's true. It may well be true that there is a higher divorce rate for women who keep their maiden names after marriage, but as I learned in statistics classes, you can't just look at the raw numbers alone. There are any number of reasons to question this little factoid. For starters, do these studies take into account the overall rise in divorce rates across the population as a whole? Do they take into account cultural biases against divorce that may exist in various places? Is the divorce rate in Quebec much higher than the rest of the world? (In Quebec, a woman is not allowed to change her name upon marriage. She must retain her maiden name). In short, there are any number of factors that can explain a rise in divorce rates among women who keep their maiden name.
Even if you can conclusively prove that keeping your maiden name results in an increased chance of divorce, perhaps that's only the symptom and not the cause. What I mean is this: perhaps women who would keep their last name have a personality trait that causes them to favor keeping their names. Forcing (or encouraging) such a woman to "give up" her name is not going to change her underlying personality -- and I think we can all agree that the personalities of the husband and wife will play a far greater role in predicting a divorce than what last name she chooses to go by. In other words, it's entirely possible that cause and effect are being confused here.
This section caught my attention as well.
It is no secret that in other circles, the reason for deteriorating marriages, climbing divorce rates and the current shidduch crisis, is greatly due to the fact that the girls today are much more educated, knowledgeable and capable than the boys are. More than often times the bread-winner in the young family is the wife. Today with modern society and the plague of liberalism all around us, woman are no longer being taught to be mothers of children and good wives, instead liberalism is teaching them to become executives of large corporations and to try and become the man they were never meant to be!
I find it to be both extremely funny and sad that a sane person could write this paragraph. We encourage our young men to sit and learn, to eschew any education which might result in his having some marketable skills, all in the name of advancing Torah study. Since the young couple has to eat and the vast majority of us don't have wealthy parents or in-laws, the women go out and earn degrees and become the breadwinners of the family so that the husband can learn in Kollel. However, now we're decrying this as the cause for deteriorating marriages and for the shidduch crisis! Give me a break! You can't have it both ways! Don't create a situation where the women are forced to go out and work and then tell them that their doing so is the cause of broken homes and the shidduch crisis. To do so is simply wrong and unfair -- whether the underlying assertion is true or not.
Retention of the last name is indicative of this recent “style” of women's independence and when you enter into your marriage with a fear of losing your independence, then you are entering into this marriage shakily and with insufficient resolve! This unhealthy balance has brought much crisis and serious issues to the orthodox circles.
Or it could be indicative of the fact that it may simply be easier to retain your last name. Or perhaps the husband keeping *his* last name indicates a "ear of losing your independence" and "entering into this marriage shakily and with insufficient resolve!" I think that if that's the case, all couples should have hyphenated names. This way *both* parties go into the marriage with the knowledge that it is a partnership of both parts.
While I do sympathize with a girl’s desire to preserve a link to her familial heritage and her need to maintain her own reputation and her feelings for identity preservation, still, there is no doubt that this trend is founded on a feminist message which strays from the Torah tradition of marriage and makes a statement that women are not the husband’s property.
Words fail me on this one. A wife is not property. And don't start jumping on me about kiddushin being done in a manner that resembles the purchase of property. One of the surest signs that I own something is the fact that I can sell it. If I want, I can sell my house to whomever I want. I can sell my hamster to whomever I want. I can sell my dishes, books, etc. to anyone I want. I can't however, sell my wife. Why? Becuase I don't really own her. Yes, I have claims on her with regard to rights and responsibilities in marriage and she likewise has rights and claims on me - but that's not the same thing as ownership. Wives are not property.
Furthermore, the Torah teaches when one marries one must not merely leave her family, but ABANDON (“yazov”) all her family’s traditions etc for her husband’s!
I think Rabbi Krasnianski should go back to the beginning of the Chumash. The last time I checked, the Torah said (emphasis mine) "al keyn ya'azov ISH es aviv v'es imo v'davak b'ishto..." (therefore a MAN should leave (sorry... ABANDON) his father and his mother and cleave to his wife..."
Another "gem" is this one:
As for girls who can’t do this for fear of losing their independence (contrary to what marriage is), either you marry your husband completely, including his name, or go back to your father's house and use his name until you learn what marriage is and ought be.
Talk about condescending and rude! Someone who doesn't want to give up their last name for whatever reason shouldn't get married at all?! As if that's the be-all and end-all of marriage? How about asking the same thing of men? Perhaps we can state that if a man is afraid of losing his independence and isn't willing to marry his wife completely (by taking her name) perhaps he shouldn't get married. Is that ludicrous? Of course it is... but so is his statement.
Marriage, IMHO, is a partnership. Both the husband and the wife have to put in the effort and make the sacrifices and comprimises that are necessary in a marriage. One party alone can't do it. If both parties to a marriage are willing to do what it takes to make the marriage work, then it doesn't really matter what last names the parties go by. However, *if* you're going to stress (for whatever reason) the importance of the woman giving up her last name as a sign of commitment to the marriage, then the husband should be no less required to do so. If that's the case, I think both the husband and wife should have hyphenated names, thereby showing that they are both committed to the marriage.
The Wolf
Hat tip: How To Measure The Years and Frum Satire.
(Let's not forget -- the very template of a successful Jewish marriage involved a couple with different last names -- Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu.) :)
Now, personally, I think it's all a big bunch of nonsense. I don't really think it matters one way or the other what names a woman uses. To me, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for a woman to keep her maiden name and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to adopt the husband's. When Eeees and I got married, I told her that I had no objection to her keeping her maiden name if she wanted to. I had no intention of changing my name to her maiden name, but I could have if I wanted to as well.
However, I find it kind of funny when articles such as this one pop up from time to time. This particular editorial had quite a few "gems" that I'd like to share with you. Let's start with this one:
Many studies have shown, as a matter of statistical fact, higher divorce rates where woman retain their maiden names.
To be perfectly fair and honest, I don't know if this is true or not. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that it's true. It may well be true that there is a higher divorce rate for women who keep their maiden names after marriage, but as I learned in statistics classes, you can't just look at the raw numbers alone. There are any number of reasons to question this little factoid. For starters, do these studies take into account the overall rise in divorce rates across the population as a whole? Do they take into account cultural biases against divorce that may exist in various places? Is the divorce rate in Quebec much higher than the rest of the world? (In Quebec, a woman is not allowed to change her name upon marriage. She must retain her maiden name). In short, there are any number of factors that can explain a rise in divorce rates among women who keep their maiden name.
Even if you can conclusively prove that keeping your maiden name results in an increased chance of divorce, perhaps that's only the symptom and not the cause. What I mean is this: perhaps women who would keep their last name have a personality trait that causes them to favor keeping their names. Forcing (or encouraging) such a woman to "give up" her name is not going to change her underlying personality -- and I think we can all agree that the personalities of the husband and wife will play a far greater role in predicting a divorce than what last name she chooses to go by. In other words, it's entirely possible that cause and effect are being confused here.
This section caught my attention as well.
It is no secret that in other circles, the reason for deteriorating marriages, climbing divorce rates and the current shidduch crisis, is greatly due to the fact that the girls today are much more educated, knowledgeable and capable than the boys are. More than often times the bread-winner in the young family is the wife. Today with modern society and the plague of liberalism all around us, woman are no longer being taught to be mothers of children and good wives, instead liberalism is teaching them to become executives of large corporations and to try and become the man they were never meant to be!
I find it to be both extremely funny and sad that a sane person could write this paragraph. We encourage our young men to sit and learn, to eschew any education which might result in his having some marketable skills, all in the name of advancing Torah study. Since the young couple has to eat and the vast majority of us don't have wealthy parents or in-laws, the women go out and earn degrees and become the breadwinners of the family so that the husband can learn in Kollel. However, now we're decrying this as the cause for deteriorating marriages and for the shidduch crisis! Give me a break! You can't have it both ways! Don't create a situation where the women are forced to go out and work and then tell them that their doing so is the cause of broken homes and the shidduch crisis. To do so is simply wrong and unfair -- whether the underlying assertion is true or not.
Retention of the last name is indicative of this recent “style” of women's independence and when you enter into your marriage with a fear of losing your independence, then you are entering into this marriage shakily and with insufficient resolve! This unhealthy balance has brought much crisis and serious issues to the orthodox circles.
Or it could be indicative of the fact that it may simply be easier to retain your last name. Or perhaps the husband keeping *his* last name indicates a "ear of losing your independence" and "entering into this marriage shakily and with insufficient resolve!" I think that if that's the case, all couples should have hyphenated names. This way *both* parties go into the marriage with the knowledge that it is a partnership of both parts.
While I do sympathize with a girl’s desire to preserve a link to her familial heritage and her need to maintain her own reputation and her feelings for identity preservation, still, there is no doubt that this trend is founded on a feminist message which strays from the Torah tradition of marriage and makes a statement that women are not the husband’s property.
Words fail me on this one. A wife is not property. And don't start jumping on me about kiddushin being done in a manner that resembles the purchase of property. One of the surest signs that I own something is the fact that I can sell it. If I want, I can sell my house to whomever I want. I can sell my hamster to whomever I want. I can sell my dishes, books, etc. to anyone I want. I can't however, sell my wife. Why? Becuase I don't really own her. Yes, I have claims on her with regard to rights and responsibilities in marriage and she likewise has rights and claims on me - but that's not the same thing as ownership. Wives are not property.
Furthermore, the Torah teaches when one marries one must not merely leave her family, but ABANDON (“yazov”) all her family’s traditions etc for her husband’s!
I think Rabbi Krasnianski should go back to the beginning of the Chumash. The last time I checked, the Torah said (emphasis mine) "al keyn ya'azov ISH es aviv v'es imo v'davak b'ishto..." (therefore a MAN should leave (sorry... ABANDON) his father and his mother and cleave to his wife..."
Another "gem" is this one:
As for girls who can’t do this for fear of losing their independence (contrary to what marriage is), either you marry your husband completely, including his name, or go back to your father's house and use his name until you learn what marriage is and ought be.
Talk about condescending and rude! Someone who doesn't want to give up their last name for whatever reason shouldn't get married at all?! As if that's the be-all and end-all of marriage? How about asking the same thing of men? Perhaps we can state that if a man is afraid of losing his independence and isn't willing to marry his wife completely (by taking her name) perhaps he shouldn't get married. Is that ludicrous? Of course it is... but so is his statement.
Marriage, IMHO, is a partnership. Both the husband and the wife have to put in the effort and make the sacrifices and comprimises that are necessary in a marriage. One party alone can't do it. If both parties to a marriage are willing to do what it takes to make the marriage work, then it doesn't really matter what last names the parties go by. However, *if* you're going to stress (for whatever reason) the importance of the woman giving up her last name as a sign of commitment to the marriage, then the husband should be no less required to do so. If that's the case, I think both the husband and wife should have hyphenated names, thereby showing that they are both committed to the marriage.
The Wolf
Hat tip: How To Measure The Years and Frum Satire.
(Let's not forget -- the very template of a successful Jewish marriage involved a couple with different last names -- Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu.) :)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Mind-blowingly Stupidest Quote of the Week
The Forward has an article on the battle over Mehadrin buses in Israel this week. In it, one of the women who favor segregation made the following statement (emphasis mine):
“I see Haredi women who sit at the back as being the Israeli Rosa Parks,” said writer Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, one of the leading proponents of segregation. “We see it as a stand against the deterioration of standards in the public arena, and view the chance to sit at the back without men gazing at us as a form of empowerment.”
Um..... words just fail me on this one. If you want to argue that the Mehadrin system has it's merits, then by all means go ahead and do so. If you want to say it makes you feel more comfortable to sit in an area with no men, then say so. If you think the plan has merits and should include every bus line, then, please, make your arguments. But to compare yourself to Rosa Parks is simply mind-blowingly ignorant. You realize that she refused to sit in the back, right? She fought for the right to sit anywhere on the bus she darned well pleased. In her case, it was about race, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that had it been gender, her reaction would have been the same.
Oh, and one last point...
Men can still gaze at you. Sitting in the back of the bus doesn't solve that problem. All they have to do is turn around.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pravda Ne'eman
“I see Haredi women who sit at the back as being the Israeli Rosa Parks,” said writer Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, one of the leading proponents of segregation. “We see it as a stand against the deterioration of standards in the public arena, and view the chance to sit at the back without men gazing at us as a form of empowerment.”
Um..... words just fail me on this one. If you want to argue that the Mehadrin system has it's merits, then by all means go ahead and do so. If you want to say it makes you feel more comfortable to sit in an area with no men, then say so. If you think the plan has merits and should include every bus line, then, please, make your arguments. But to compare yourself to Rosa Parks is simply mind-blowingly ignorant. You realize that she refused to sit in the back, right? She fought for the right to sit anywhere on the bus she darned well pleased. In her case, it was about race, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that had it been gender, her reaction would have been the same.
Oh, and one last point...
Men can still gaze at you. Sitting in the back of the bus doesn't solve that problem. All they have to do is turn around.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pravda Ne'eman
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Is This The Newest Dating Craze... Don't Compliment Your Date?
A few months ago Chananya Weissman posted on his website about an article that he saw in the Jewish Press's Im Yirtzeh column. The writer was a kollel boy who had gone out on three dates with a "Bais Yacov type" girl. All was fine and well until, on the fourth date, he made a fatal error.
He told his date that she looked nice.
Now, neither Chananya and I were present when this dreadful act occured, so I can't relate exactly how he said it. My guess, however, is that he didn't start howling like a wolf and have his eyes grow to the size of saucers and bulge out as in a Tex Avery cartoon. My guess is that he didn't start drooling over her in public. My guess is that he didn't say something along the lines of "Hey hot mama, you're one fine lookin' dish." What probably happened is that he politely, respectfully thought that his date put a lot of effort into looking nice for him and wanted to acknowledge it and compliment her. He probably said something to the effect of "you look very nice tonight."
Wrong move. Apparently, with this girl, a compliment is the kiss of death. Things quickly became awkward. The date was cut short and the girl immediately telephoned the shadchan and said that it was over. His compliment showed that he was "just a guy," whereas she thought he was something else.
When I first read his posting, I thought it was strange, but, okay... you have some people with strange ideas in every group. So she doesn't want to be complimented. How many like her can there be?
Well, apparently, there is another. This week's Letters to the Editor in the Yated had a letter from a boy in yeshiva who started going out with a girl. Here are some excerpts from the letter (any typos/misspellings are mine):
The first three dates were amazing. The conversation flowed beautifully and I felt that we were both enjoying it. There were more than 10 hours of enjoyable time spent together. After every date, I was getting more excited. The sahdchan even asked you afer every date if you ahd any hesitations and you said there were none.
Then came the fourth date.
It definitely had a more serious tone than the first three, but that is normal. Then you told the shadchan that it's over. No reasons, no explanations, nothing.
I was devastated.
I sat for hours trying to figure out where I messed up. I was shocked and couldn't figure it out. The shadchan finally got one sentence out of you: "It was too personal."
Then it hit me. Towards the end of the date, after discussing hashkafah and feeling that we were on the same page, I complimented your looks. You thought/think that I'm a sick, one-track-minded pervert.
OK, so that's two people who think that way. Lest you think that that's it, there is apparently a third person who holds this opinion... the guy himself!
You see, however, I don't either believe that it's 100% tzniyusdik to give a personal compliment until after marriage.
So, why did I do it?
Because a famous shadchan recently told me that, if things are going well on a fourth date, I should find something to compliment the girl on. I put aside my own feelings on the matter because I figured that the shadchan had more experience than I do. I was wrong. I made a mistake. I admit it. I should have followed my own feelings and not followed the professional advice.
My guess is that once three people have a certain opinion, probably more do as well. So, now we've come to the point where if you dare to compliment your date on how nice she looks, if you even think to acknowledge and appreciate the effort that she puts into looking nice, if you have even a single thought as to her physical appearence, you must be a "sick, one-track-minded pervert."
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder what the point of shidduch dating is anymore. After all, everyone is expected to follow a script. Don't do this before the second date. Don't say that before the third date. Wear this. Don't wear that. The only acceptable places to go are a lounge, airport or other similarly boring place. Anything that uniquely shows you to be an individual is to be discouraged. In short, if you don't follow the script, you're toast.
So, what does that leave? Why even date? Well, I suppose that one way in which you are unique is in your appearance. Unless you have an identical twin, no one really looks like you. So, even if you have to follow a script and act like everyone else, at least you can be distinguished by your appearance. This includes your physical appearance and your "presentation" (i.e. how you dress, how groomed you are, etc.). But if we're now to not even notice the physical appearance of our dates, then what reason is there to even engage in the activity anymore? Why not just go back to completely arranged marriages and be done with it? Have the parents arrange the marriage, let them meet for a few minutes so that they can see that each "taka has a nose" and that's it. If we've reduced the dating activity to one of actors following a script so that you can't get an indication of the real personality of the person you're dating (to the point where if you minorly deviate from the script then you're out) and where you're not even supposed to notice the appearance of the date, then what is the whole point?
The Wolf
He told his date that she looked nice.
Now, neither Chananya and I were present when this dreadful act occured, so I can't relate exactly how he said it. My guess, however, is that he didn't start howling like a wolf and have his eyes grow to the size of saucers and bulge out as in a Tex Avery cartoon. My guess is that he didn't start drooling over her in public. My guess is that he didn't say something along the lines of "Hey hot mama, you're one fine lookin' dish." What probably happened is that he politely, respectfully thought that his date put a lot of effort into looking nice for him and wanted to acknowledge it and compliment her. He probably said something to the effect of "you look very nice tonight."
Wrong move. Apparently, with this girl, a compliment is the kiss of death. Things quickly became awkward. The date was cut short and the girl immediately telephoned the shadchan and said that it was over. His compliment showed that he was "just a guy," whereas she thought he was something else.
When I first read his posting, I thought it was strange, but, okay... you have some people with strange ideas in every group. So she doesn't want to be complimented. How many like her can there be?
Well, apparently, there is another. This week's Letters to the Editor in the Yated had a letter from a boy in yeshiva who started going out with a girl. Here are some excerpts from the letter (any typos/misspellings are mine):
The first three dates were amazing. The conversation flowed beautifully and I felt that we were both enjoying it. There were more than 10 hours of enjoyable time spent together. After every date, I was getting more excited. The sahdchan even asked you afer every date if you ahd any hesitations and you said there were none.
Then came the fourth date.
It definitely had a more serious tone than the first three, but that is normal. Then you told the shadchan that it's over. No reasons, no explanations, nothing.
I was devastated.
I sat for hours trying to figure out where I messed up. I was shocked and couldn't figure it out. The shadchan finally got one sentence out of you: "It was too personal."
Then it hit me. Towards the end of the date, after discussing hashkafah and feeling that we were on the same page, I complimented your looks. You thought/think that I'm a sick, one-track-minded pervert.
OK, so that's two people who think that way. Lest you think that that's it, there is apparently a third person who holds this opinion... the guy himself!
You see, however, I don't either believe that it's 100% tzniyusdik to give a personal compliment until after marriage.
So, why did I do it?
Because a famous shadchan recently told me that, if things are going well on a fourth date, I should find something to compliment the girl on. I put aside my own feelings on the matter because I figured that the shadchan had more experience than I do. I was wrong. I made a mistake. I admit it. I should have followed my own feelings and not followed the professional advice.
My guess is that once three people have a certain opinion, probably more do as well. So, now we've come to the point where if you dare to compliment your date on how nice she looks, if you even think to acknowledge and appreciate the effort that she puts into looking nice, if you have even a single thought as to her physical appearence, you must be a "sick, one-track-minded pervert."
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder what the point of shidduch dating is anymore. After all, everyone is expected to follow a script. Don't do this before the second date. Don't say that before the third date. Wear this. Don't wear that. The only acceptable places to go are a lounge, airport or other similarly boring place. Anything that uniquely shows you to be an individual is to be discouraged. In short, if you don't follow the script, you're toast.
So, what does that leave? Why even date? Well, I suppose that one way in which you are unique is in your appearance. Unless you have an identical twin, no one really looks like you. So, even if you have to follow a script and act like everyone else, at least you can be distinguished by your appearance. This includes your physical appearance and your "presentation" (i.e. how you dress, how groomed you are, etc.). But if we're now to not even notice the physical appearance of our dates, then what reason is there to even engage in the activity anymore? Why not just go back to completely arranged marriages and be done with it? Have the parents arrange the marriage, let them meet for a few minutes so that they can see that each "taka has a nose" and that's it. If we've reduced the dating activity to one of actors following a script so that you can't get an indication of the real personality of the person you're dating (to the point where if you minorly deviate from the script then you're out) and where you're not even supposed to notice the appearance of the date, then what is the whole point?
The Wolf
Monday, May 19, 2008
Loshon Hara causes.... Science
Warning... this could make your brain hurt.
We all know about the terrible sin of lashon harah (speaking evil of someone). It's a sin that causes untold grief, disrupts marriages, destroys friendships, and causes baseless hatred between man and his fellow man. Volumes have been written about this sin and the terrible disharmony that is a result of it.
However, there is a side effect of it that I bet you weren't aware of. As it turns out, lashon harah also causes advances in science. No, I kid you not. According to Divrei.org:
As Rabbi Kessin has pointed out, if the Jews sin, then the Soton receives the flow of Divine energy, twists it into a physical caricature of its spiritual form, and gives it to the nations. In this case, the light of Moshiach, a divine wisdom which gives insight into the spiritual worlds, was converted into a body of knowledge that shows the mechanics of the physical world. And what is that? Science.
That's right... Science is only a perverted form of Divine energy. And is science a good thing? Well...
Certainly we have benefited from the many advances in science, along with the rest of the world. There has been a terrible price, however. Why does the Soton want the world to be filled with knowledge of science? Until science’s advent, atheism was unheard of; it had no intellectual underpinnings. Science, however, can be construed to present a form of reality that does not include Hashem, chas v’shalom. Once the Soton could influence the nations into giving up their religions (which, twisted they may be, still involve an awareness of a divine being), he could then turn the nations onto the Jews and “enlighten” them. How many millions of Jews abandoned their Torah when confronted with the very real powers of science? From simple shtetl yidden who were bowled over by their first glimpse of a locomotive train, to ambitious university students who felt obligated to drop their “backwardness” in order to get ahead, the fires on the altar of science have had no shortage of fuel. Today, nine of ten Jews are nebbuch totally non-religious, with at most a token “seder,” an occasional bagel, and a casual visit to a temple on the High Holidays to show for their heritage. We have no idea how many millions of “gentiles” are in fact lost Jews who fell away from our nation over the centuries. Furthermore, gedolim are becoming a rarity, as the siyatta d’shamaya dries up more and more. What’s more, the sheer effort to become a ben Torah has become a larger and larger mountain. As one rav ruefully observed, “The [primary] purpose of kollel today is to make frum ba’alabatim!”
That's right... Science is only a tool of Satan to get us to abandon God. Certainly HaShem doesn't want science, right? After all, it's Satan's tool.
And what should be the proper Jewish approach to the wonders of science? The author of the piece suggests the following (emphasis his):
Since all the advances in science came ultimately from the Soton, who had taken the ohr Moshiach that had been meant for us, had twisted it into a force for understanding the physical world, and had given it to the nations, we must take another attitude every time that we visit one of those big-box electronics stores to buy yet another appliance. As we gaze in wonder at the latest super-small, yet super-speedy computers (far faster than last year’s model) and marvel at the latest that technology has wrought, a sad thought must cross our minds: “All this is but a perverted shadow of what was really meant – for us!”
That's right. Advances in science are simply perversions of the light of Moshiach. And, therefore, what should we do?
Says Rabbi Kessin: Look at the damage done by loshon hora. Not only does a Jew’s speaking or believing loshon hora enable the Soton to prosecute him and then punish him, but this sin also gives the Soton the ability to take the kedushah which was meant for us, pervert it, and give it to the nations, who then can use it against us. Furthermore, when the Soton is able to take from the ohr Moshiach, the advent of Moshiach is delayed, and he is able to continue his destruction in ways never imagined before. On the other hand, one who guards his tongue not only preserves his mazal, his good fortune, but continues to direct the shefa of kedushah to Klal Yisroel (to both his and all Israel’s benefit), including the ohr Moshiach, thus directly hastening Moshiach’s arrival.
Yep, that's it. Don't speak lashon harah and the evil of science will stop. If we would all just stop speaking evil of one another, those awful scientists will stop trying to cure diseases. Hey, maybe if we're really good at it, they'll forget the vaccines to polio, smallpox and the like. Perhaps we'll even forget about electricity and go back to learning Torah by candlelight, as we were obviously meant to. Certainly many of the horrible agricultural advances that proved Malthus wrong could be turned around, and we can return to those wonderful times of the world population having to worry about famines every now and again.
Perhaps, if we're really good at curbing our hate speech, we will no longer have refrigeration and modern sanitation. Heck, the Torah *meant* for us to have cholera and other diseases brought about by unsanitary conditions.
In addition, I want to know whose lousy lashon harah inflicted us with the printing press. Don't we know that the sefarim that we have nowadays (produced until recently on a printing press and now on computers) are just products of the Soton and really should all be handwritten?
If only HaShem would forgive us for the horrible sin of lashon harah and take back the "curses" of modern medicine such as surgery, antibiotics, vaccines, preventive medicine and physical therapy. If only we could defeat the Soton and his handiwork of heavier-than-air flight, communications, agricultural advances, plastics and modern sanitation. If only we could stop speaking lashon harah, we could return to the wonderful way of life we had a thousand years ago:
and lastly...
... when a community (such as Lakewood) where thousands of people learn all day and do not work could never exist.
The Wolf
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
(And before anyone gets any wise ideas - no I'm not condoning Lashon Harah. My opening paragraph was meant sincerely. It's just the silly idea that LH causes science [thereby making science bad] that I'm taking issue with).
We all know about the terrible sin of lashon harah (speaking evil of someone). It's a sin that causes untold grief, disrupts marriages, destroys friendships, and causes baseless hatred between man and his fellow man. Volumes have been written about this sin and the terrible disharmony that is a result of it.
However, there is a side effect of it that I bet you weren't aware of. As it turns out, lashon harah also causes advances in science. No, I kid you not. According to Divrei.org:
As Rabbi Kessin has pointed out, if the Jews sin, then the Soton receives the flow of Divine energy, twists it into a physical caricature of its spiritual form, and gives it to the nations. In this case, the light of Moshiach, a divine wisdom which gives insight into the spiritual worlds, was converted into a body of knowledge that shows the mechanics of the physical world. And what is that? Science.
That's right... Science is only a perverted form of Divine energy. And is science a good thing? Well...
Certainly we have benefited from the many advances in science, along with the rest of the world. There has been a terrible price, however. Why does the Soton want the world to be filled with knowledge of science? Until science’s advent, atheism was unheard of; it had no intellectual underpinnings. Science, however, can be construed to present a form of reality that does not include Hashem, chas v’shalom. Once the Soton could influence the nations into giving up their religions (which, twisted they may be, still involve an awareness of a divine being), he could then turn the nations onto the Jews and “enlighten” them. How many millions of Jews abandoned their Torah when confronted with the very real powers of science? From simple shtetl yidden who were bowled over by their first glimpse of a locomotive train, to ambitious university students who felt obligated to drop their “backwardness” in order to get ahead, the fires on the altar of science have had no shortage of fuel. Today, nine of ten Jews are nebbuch totally non-religious, with at most a token “seder,” an occasional bagel, and a casual visit to a temple on the High Holidays to show for their heritage. We have no idea how many millions of “gentiles” are in fact lost Jews who fell away from our nation over the centuries. Furthermore, gedolim are becoming a rarity, as the siyatta d’shamaya dries up more and more. What’s more, the sheer effort to become a ben Torah has become a larger and larger mountain. As one rav ruefully observed, “The [primary] purpose of kollel today is to make frum ba’alabatim!”
That's right... Science is only a tool of Satan to get us to abandon God. Certainly HaShem doesn't want science, right? After all, it's Satan's tool.
And what should be the proper Jewish approach to the wonders of science? The author of the piece suggests the following (emphasis his):
Since all the advances in science came ultimately from the Soton, who had taken the ohr Moshiach that had been meant for us, had twisted it into a force for understanding the physical world, and had given it to the nations, we must take another attitude every time that we visit one of those big-box electronics stores to buy yet another appliance. As we gaze in wonder at the latest super-small, yet super-speedy computers (far faster than last year’s model) and marvel at the latest that technology has wrought, a sad thought must cross our minds: “All this is but a perverted shadow of what was really meant – for us!”
That's right. Advances in science are simply perversions of the light of Moshiach. And, therefore, what should we do?
Says Rabbi Kessin: Look at the damage done by loshon hora. Not only does a Jew’s speaking or believing loshon hora enable the Soton to prosecute him and then punish him, but this sin also gives the Soton the ability to take the kedushah which was meant for us, pervert it, and give it to the nations, who then can use it against us. Furthermore, when the Soton is able to take from the ohr Moshiach, the advent of Moshiach is delayed, and he is able to continue his destruction in ways never imagined before. On the other hand, one who guards his tongue not only preserves his mazal, his good fortune, but continues to direct the shefa of kedushah to Klal Yisroel (to both his and all Israel’s benefit), including the ohr Moshiach, thus directly hastening Moshiach’s arrival.
Yep, that's it. Don't speak lashon harah and the evil of science will stop. If we would all just stop speaking evil of one another, those awful scientists will stop trying to cure diseases. Hey, maybe if we're really good at it, they'll forget the vaccines to polio, smallpox and the like. Perhaps we'll even forget about electricity and go back to learning Torah by candlelight, as we were obviously meant to. Certainly many of the horrible agricultural advances that proved Malthus wrong could be turned around, and we can return to those wonderful times of the world population having to worry about famines every now and again.
Perhaps, if we're really good at curbing our hate speech, we will no longer have refrigeration and modern sanitation. Heck, the Torah *meant* for us to have cholera and other diseases brought about by unsanitary conditions.
In addition, I want to know whose lousy lashon harah inflicted us with the printing press. Don't we know that the sefarim that we have nowadays (produced until recently on a printing press and now on computers) are just products of the Soton and really should all be handwritten?
If only HaShem would forgive us for the horrible sin of lashon harah and take back the "curses" of modern medicine such as surgery, antibiotics, vaccines, preventive medicine and physical therapy. If only we could defeat the Soton and his handiwork of heavier-than-air flight, communications, agricultural advances, plastics and modern sanitation. If only we could stop speaking lashon harah, we could return to the wonderful way of life we had a thousand years ago:
- when the life expectancy was not even forty
- when families could almost be assured of losing at least one child to disease or accident
- when women routinely died in childbirth
- when Torah books were so rare that most people didn't even have a siddur in their house (let alone all the sefarim that they have now)
- when any number of medical conditions from a ruptured appendix to diabetes to cancer meant certain death
- when human and animal waste were almost omnipresent in homes and in the streets due to the lack of sanitation, inviting (often incurable) disease into our lives
- when travel from one town to the next often involved fears of highwaymen
- when the fastest that news could travel was the maximum speed of a horse or a ship
- when food could not be stored beyond a day or two due to the lack of refrigeration
and lastly...
... when a community (such as Lakewood) where thousands of people learn all day and do not work could never exist.
The Wolf
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
(And before anyone gets any wise ideas - no I'm not condoning Lashon Harah. My opening paragraph was meant sincerely. It's just the silly idea that LH causes science [thereby making science bad] that I'm taking issue with).
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 12, 2008
Look Up At Noon
This is only indirectly related to the topic of this blog, as it was said by a Fundie Christian, not a Jew. Nonetheless, I found this quote (presented as a proof against the possibility of evolution) and couldn't resist passing it along:
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
The Wolf
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
The Wolf
Sunday, February 24, 2008
How Not To Teach Your Kids About Dinosaurs
The age old question of dinosaurs (pun intended) was brought up in an Imamother thread recently. A poster took her son to the museum where they had a mock archeology dig. However, when her son began asking her questions about dinosaurs and the Torah approach to them, she didn't quite know what to answer.
One poster put in with this comment:
I don't see why there's any need to validate the museum's "hashkafa", or not imply that it's not what we believe.
Surely your son understands that the museum guides aren't Jewish, and he can be simply told that the whole dinosoar thing is goyishe . It shouldn't be hard for him to understand that while we are so lucky we have the Torah, where it tells us how Hashem created the world, Breishis Borah Elokim, etc., and the Torah is truth, Toras Emes, so we know the truth,
but that goyim don't have/ believe in the Torah, and sometimes they make things up taht are not true, like dinosoars and other "shtusim" e.g. fairy-tales.( you don't have to go into the whole evolutionary theory and refute it here, for your innocent little three year old's keppeh'le, just say that it's not what it says in the Torah, and goyim made up these stories.)
Now, if you want to believe that "the whole dinosaur thing is goyishe," I suppose I can't stop you. After all, it's your life and you're free to believe whatever you wish, however mistaken and foolish it might be. But I really want to focus on is not so much her personal belief, but the way she would choose to express it to her son.
Her approach is to tell her son that the "goyims'" lives are so empty without Torah, so devoid of purpose, that they have to make up silly things like dinosaurs in order to give their lives meaning. The main problem with this approach, very simply, is that it is a big, fat lie. I wasn't aware that the prohibition of m'dvar sheker tirchak ended when talking about non-Jews.
Putting aside the aspect of the prohibition, there is another problem with this approach -- very simply, what happens when the child finds out that what his mother told him is simply not true. Lying to children in order to teach a lesson is always bad policy. From the rebbe who tells his students that foods taste better when you make a bracha on them to the parent who tells their kid that scientists are only interested in taking people away from serving HaShem, they spread lies and misinformation to children who, at that age, don't know better.
There is also the question of what happens when the child finds out that she or he has been lied to. No matter how insular your community, there is likely to come a day when you might actually have the opportunity to talk for five minutes with someone another faith, and you find out that they *don't* believe that dinosaurs were made up to give their hollow, empty lives meaning. They might even find out that some of them take their faith in Christianity or Islam or whatever religion seriously, and draw real strength and inspiration from it -- much as they do from the Torah. They may even realize that the non-Jew they are speaking to doesn't believe in dinosaurs either. :)
Even if they never meet Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever for a length of time long enough to start a conversation, there's even the danger that they may be able to piece it together for themselves. They may eventually reason "why would they make up something so silly as a dinosaur to give their lives meaning?" They may begin to wonder why billions of people would be willing to walk around in self-delusion about the existence of dinosaurs.
And you don't have to be an adult to reason that out -- heck, I did it in eighth grade. I had a classmate at the time who tried to tell me that all the Christians in the world *know* that Judaism is the true religion, and that they are all just faking it. Now, I didn't know a single non-Jew at the time -- and yet, I was able to instantly spot how ridiculous that sounded. I sometimes wonder if my classmate ever met a devout Christian at some point later in his life, and if he did, how he reconciled the man's faith with his own world view.
With children, however, I think it is very important to always tell the truth when trying to impart important life lessons about Yiddishkeit. Basing your lessons on lies is dangerous, because once the child learns the truth (and, in all likelihood, they *will* learn the truth), they will begin to realize that they've been sold a bill of goods, and they might not be able to distinguish between the lies that they were told, and the truth that they were told. And that road often leads to total rejection.
In short, if you don't want to tell your kids about dinosaurs, then by all means, don't say anything. But don't say something as ridiculous as that the "goyim" make it up because they don't have the Torah.
The Wolf
One poster put in with this comment:
I don't see why there's any need to validate the museum's "hashkafa", or not imply that it's not what we believe.
Surely your son understands that the museum guides aren't Jewish, and he can be simply told that the whole dinosoar thing is goyishe . It shouldn't be hard for him to understand that while we are so lucky we have the Torah, where it tells us how Hashem created the world, Breishis Borah Elokim, etc., and the Torah is truth, Toras Emes, so we know the truth,
but that goyim don't have/ believe in the Torah, and sometimes they make things up taht are not true, like dinosoars and other "shtusim" e.g. fairy-tales.( you don't have to go into the whole evolutionary theory and refute it here, for your innocent little three year old's keppeh'le, just say that it's not what it says in the Torah, and goyim made up these stories.)
Now, if you want to believe that "the whole dinosaur thing is goyishe," I suppose I can't stop you. After all, it's your life and you're free to believe whatever you wish, however mistaken and foolish it might be. But I really want to focus on is not so much her personal belief, but the way she would choose to express it to her son.
Her approach is to tell her son that the "goyims'" lives are so empty without Torah, so devoid of purpose, that they have to make up silly things like dinosaurs in order to give their lives meaning. The main problem with this approach, very simply, is that it is a big, fat lie. I wasn't aware that the prohibition of m'dvar sheker tirchak ended when talking about non-Jews.
Putting aside the aspect of the prohibition, there is another problem with this approach -- very simply, what happens when the child finds out that what his mother told him is simply not true. Lying to children in order to teach a lesson is always bad policy. From the rebbe who tells his students that foods taste better when you make a bracha on them to the parent who tells their kid that scientists are only interested in taking people away from serving HaShem, they spread lies and misinformation to children who, at that age, don't know better.
There is also the question of what happens when the child finds out that she or he has been lied to. No matter how insular your community, there is likely to come a day when you might actually have the opportunity to talk for five minutes with someone another faith, and you find out that they *don't* believe that dinosaurs were made up to give their hollow, empty lives meaning. They might even find out that some of them take their faith in Christianity or Islam or whatever religion seriously, and draw real strength and inspiration from it -- much as they do from the Torah. They may even realize that the non-Jew they are speaking to doesn't believe in dinosaurs either. :)
Even if they never meet Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever for a length of time long enough to start a conversation, there's even the danger that they may be able to piece it together for themselves. They may eventually reason "why would they make up something so silly as a dinosaur to give their lives meaning?" They may begin to wonder why billions of people would be willing to walk around in self-delusion about the existence of dinosaurs.
And you don't have to be an adult to reason that out -- heck, I did it in eighth grade. I had a classmate at the time who tried to tell me that all the Christians in the world *know* that Judaism is the true religion, and that they are all just faking it. Now, I didn't know a single non-Jew at the time -- and yet, I was able to instantly spot how ridiculous that sounded. I sometimes wonder if my classmate ever met a devout Christian at some point later in his life, and if he did, how he reconciled the man's faith with his own world view.
With children, however, I think it is very important to always tell the truth when trying to impart important life lessons about Yiddishkeit. Basing your lessons on lies is dangerous, because once the child learns the truth (and, in all likelihood, they *will* learn the truth), they will begin to realize that they've been sold a bill of goods, and they might not be able to distinguish between the lies that they were told, and the truth that they were told. And that road often leads to total rejection.
In short, if you don't want to tell your kids about dinosaurs, then by all means, don't say anything. But don't say something as ridiculous as that the "goyim" make it up because they don't have the Torah.
The Wolf
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Mazal Tov On Your Date
Cheryl Kupfer has a sad article in last week's Jewish Press regarding the sad state of dating in the frum community. She starts out the article with this powerful line:
I hate to say it, but I am coming to the conclusion that that if a bocher and a girl actually go on a date – a mazel tov to both sides is warranted. It means that each had successfully passed an intense, all encompassing inspection and scrutiny that would be the envy of any secret government agency. Getting “approved”, and considered worthy to go out with someone, is getting to be a cause for celebration!
We've all heard stories about the "checking out" that goes on in the shidduch scene. Both sides (it sounds so... adversarial when put that way) provide information to the other, along with references. Phone calls are made, dirt is dug up, private investigators are hired (lest you think I'm joking, read the article) and after a while (anywhere from a few days to a few weeks) both sides come back with a "yes" or "no." Saying "yes" to date has become a major commitment in and of itself.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons to say no to a first date. But there are plenty of silly reasons to do so. Ms. Kupfer brings the case of one boy who was turned down for a first date. He was a fine young man who came from a chashuv, comfortable family. So, why was he turned down sight unseen? Well, it turns out that the poor fellow had the disadvantage of having too many siblings. What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, when it comes time to collect the inheritance, it would be split too many ways. That's right -- the girl (or her family) turned down a shidduch because they were thinking about the in-laws' death and how much they could profit from it! (I think the guy dodged a bullet with that one. He should thank God every day that he missed *that* shidduch!)
And, of course, if having too many siblings is a problem, so is having too few. As Ms. Kupfer puts it:
...somewhere out there in the shidduch world, a wonderful bocher wasbeing turned down by a girl’s parents – because he has too few siblings. The other side would have doubts about the family’s “frumkeit” if they only had three or four kids – or wonder - if indeed it was an ehrlich family, if there was a hidden “fertility” problem.
Now, I am not in the parsha of shidduchim myself. My kids are too young and I am happily married for quite a few years. However, I recently tried setting up some older singles. Eeees and I tried to set up a girl with a single fellow from our shul. She was willing, but he turned her down without so much as speaking a single sentence with her by saying that he doesn't think they're "on the same page." On the flip side, we tried to set the girl up with another guy we knew, but she turned him sight unseen on the advice of a mentor. Now, we're not talking about young kids here... all the people mentioned here are at least thirty years old and you'd think that they'd at least make the attempt. But sadly, that's not the way of today's shidduch scene.
Of course, all this is on top of the fact that we've made it utterly impossible for couples to meet on their own. Heaven forbid older singles should have a social gathering where they could meet on their own. Heaven forbid if a guy actually sees a girl in shul and (horror of horrors) asks her out all by himself.
I've always wondered if there really was a demographic "shidduch crisis" or if it was a simply a media-hype. To tell the truth, I'm now convinced that there is a shidduch crisis... although I don't know if it's simply a matter of demographics. The real crisis, IMHO, is that we've made shidduchim so difficult for younger and older sibllings alike, that we've placed so many obstacles in the way of a first date, that it is truly a miracle that anyone gets together anymore. Everytime I hear these stories, I thank God with all my heart that I met Eeees on my own (He was our shadchan) and that I didn't have to go through all this nonsense. If I did, who knows, I might still be single today.
The Wolf
I hate to say it, but I am coming to the conclusion that that if a bocher and a girl actually go on a date – a mazel tov to both sides is warranted. It means that each had successfully passed an intense, all encompassing inspection and scrutiny that would be the envy of any secret government agency. Getting “approved”, and considered worthy to go out with someone, is getting to be a cause for celebration!
We've all heard stories about the "checking out" that goes on in the shidduch scene. Both sides (it sounds so... adversarial when put that way) provide information to the other, along with references. Phone calls are made, dirt is dug up, private investigators are hired (lest you think I'm joking, read the article) and after a while (anywhere from a few days to a few weeks) both sides come back with a "yes" or "no." Saying "yes" to date has become a major commitment in and of itself.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons to say no to a first date. But there are plenty of silly reasons to do so. Ms. Kupfer brings the case of one boy who was turned down for a first date. He was a fine young man who came from a chashuv, comfortable family. So, why was he turned down sight unseen? Well, it turns out that the poor fellow had the disadvantage of having too many siblings. What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, when it comes time to collect the inheritance, it would be split too many ways. That's right -- the girl (or her family) turned down a shidduch because they were thinking about the in-laws' death and how much they could profit from it! (I think the guy dodged a bullet with that one. He should thank God every day that he missed *that* shidduch!)
And, of course, if having too many siblings is a problem, so is having too few. As Ms. Kupfer puts it:
...somewhere out there in the shidduch world, a wonderful bocher wasbeing turned down by a girl’s parents – because he has too few siblings. The other side would have doubts about the family’s “frumkeit” if they only had three or four kids – or wonder - if indeed it was an ehrlich family, if there was a hidden “fertility” problem.
Now, I am not in the parsha of shidduchim myself. My kids are too young and I am happily married for quite a few years. However, I recently tried setting up some older singles. Eeees and I tried to set up a girl with a single fellow from our shul. She was willing, but he turned her down without so much as speaking a single sentence with her by saying that he doesn't think they're "on the same page." On the flip side, we tried to set the girl up with another guy we knew, but she turned him sight unseen on the advice of a mentor. Now, we're not talking about young kids here... all the people mentioned here are at least thirty years old and you'd think that they'd at least make the attempt. But sadly, that's not the way of today's shidduch scene.
Of course, all this is on top of the fact that we've made it utterly impossible for couples to meet on their own. Heaven forbid older singles should have a social gathering where they could meet on their own. Heaven forbid if a guy actually sees a girl in shul and (horror of horrors) asks her out all by himself.
I've always wondered if there really was a demographic "shidduch crisis" or if it was a simply a media-hype. To tell the truth, I'm now convinced that there is a shidduch crisis... although I don't know if it's simply a matter of demographics. The real crisis, IMHO, is that we've made shidduchim so difficult for younger and older sibllings alike, that we've placed so many obstacles in the way of a first date, that it is truly a miracle that anyone gets together anymore. Everytime I hear these stories, I thank God with all my heart that I met Eeees on my own (He was our shadchan) and that I didn't have to go through all this nonsense. If I did, who knows, I might still be single today.
The Wolf
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
We All Need A Laugh: Proof That Moshe Was a Satmar.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Shidduch silliness
I saw this on the End The Madness Boards, posted by Tali.
I recently tried to fix up Avraham* with Tzivia*. The two of them sounded reasonably suitable on paper, and seemed to have workably compatible personalities.
Avraham said yes. Tzivia said no.
Why not?
Because, GET THIS: Tzivia thought that it was inapropriate for a bochur to be talking on the phone to me, a single girl. So she flatly refused one of the most quality people I have ever been privileged to know.
What gives???
Now, I don't know what Tzivia's problem is. After all, had Tali been a married woman, then Avraham's "sin" would be far worse -- imagine a yeshiva bochur talking to a married woman on the phone. And certainly, Tzivia would consider it just as inappropriate for a girl to talk to a single or married man who is trying to set them up with someone else.
So, according to Tzivia, it seems that the only acceptable way to make a shidduch is via a married couple where the wife gets the girl and the husband gets the guy. Any other method is "inappropriate."
*Sigh* And the madness continues.
The Wolf
I recently tried to fix up Avraham* with Tzivia*. The two of them sounded reasonably suitable on paper, and seemed to have workably compatible personalities.
Avraham said yes. Tzivia said no.
Why not?
Because, GET THIS: Tzivia thought that it was inapropriate for a bochur to be talking on the phone to me, a single girl. So she flatly refused one of the most quality people I have ever been privileged to know.
What gives???
Now, I don't know what Tzivia's problem is. After all, had Tali been a married woman, then Avraham's "sin" would be far worse -- imagine a yeshiva bochur talking to a married woman on the phone. And certainly, Tzivia would consider it just as inappropriate for a girl to talk to a single or married man who is trying to set them up with someone else.
So, according to Tzivia, it seems that the only acceptable way to make a shidduch is via a married couple where the wife gets the girl and the husband gets the guy. Any other method is "inappropriate."
*Sigh* And the madness continues.
The Wolf
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Hilarious Ad for the B'nei Brak/Petach Tikvah Pool
Want to go swimming in the Bnei Brak pool in Petach Tikvah? Well, then, better bring your clothing. Or so it would seem from the advertisement.
Now, I'm not complaining that the advertisement has no women. Really, I understand that 100%. But it seems that we've now arrived at the point where it is not only unacceptable to show women at all, but it is also unacceptable to show men in anything less than full dress attire... even when the result is absurd.
Seriously, I can understand it if they didn't want to show any bare-chested men. Really. But they could have had a shoulders-and-up view of the man in the pool. Or even just his head (with the water up to his neck). But, apparently, it seems that it is only acceptable to show a man in a pool if he's fully dressed, including shirt, jacket, tie and hat. And glasses! Oh yeah, and bare feet are no good either... the kid diving into the pool is wearing shoes! I hope the weight of his shoes doesn't drag him under.
I think we've got a serious problem when you can't portray a man in a pool unless he's in full chareidi garb. After all, presumably, the men actually see each other in swimming attire when in the pool, right? If so, then how can a picture of it be any worse? Or maybe they *do* swim in full clothing?
The Wolf
Hat tip: Shaul Reznik
UPDATE: Yeesh! Mention "swim" in your post and all of a sudden you get the most interesting Google advertisements!. I've disabled the sidebar ad for Google until I figure out how to get it to only show appropriate ads. Thanks to those who alerted me to this.
The Wolf
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Are Children Conceived Through IVF Spiritually Defective?
Rabbi Manis Friedman seems to think so.
In his essay, Rabbi Friedman writes about how important the circumstances of a child's conception are. He writes that ideally, conception should occur naturally with two parents who love each other. When it occurs in circumstances other than this, he writes, there could be serious consequences. If, during conception, parents are in other than ideal circumstances (disinterested in each other, or in the hopes that there would be no child are two example that he brings) then it can harm the child psychologically and spiritually. He states that children who result from these unions feel unloved or unwanted by their parents.
And then he asks:
If it is true that a compromised intimacy hurts the child, what happens when there is no intimacy at all?
While he does not come out and say it, the implication here is that when there is no intimacy involved, it is even worse than when there is "bad intimacy." To back up his implied assertion, he brings the following example:
According to Chasidic sources, both Isaac, the patriarch of the Jews, and Habakuk, the son of the Shunamit, were born with souls from alma d'nukva or "the feminine realm." It is interesting that both were born through extraordinary, holy circumstances, and even so were lacking an essential spiritual component. It would likewise take the extraordinary, transformative experiences of the akedah (the 'binding" of Isaac), and the death-and-revival of the Shunamit's son, for their souls to be made whole. The unnatural conditions by which these individuals were conceived would require "correction" later in life. All the more so our cause for concern when this takes place in situations that are decidedly less than holy.
There is one line in his article that seems to indicate that the target of his essay is the single woman who uses IVF (or some other assisted reproductive method)* to have a child. But the reality is that the women who do so are few and far between... and in the frum world (which is the target of his essay) those people are practically non-existent. In reality, his target seems to be the Orthodox infertile couples who use (or are considering using) IVF to have children. He is, in essence, telling couples who use IVF that their children are spiritually (and possibly psychologically) defective because they weren't conceived in a spirit of love and nurture. Well, as someone I know who happens to have one of those miracle babies pointed out:
As someone who now has a miracle baby rocking in his swing right next to me, I can honestly say that he is no less loved, wanted or lacking than my two daughters who were conceived naturally.
Not to take away from my love of my daughters, but my son was prayed for. I spilled tears that I would conceive him.
In the end, Rabbi Friedman asserts, all is not lost. If you already have an IVF baby, you can easily "fix" his problems. How?
Chassidism offered an antidote in the practice of Chitas -- an acronym for Chumash (Torah), Tehillim (Psalms) and Tanya. Just by reading the words, by absorbing the images of those letters and those words and those paragraphs in daily segments, the negative repercussions of assisted reproduction may be corrected.
Now, then, I'm kind of stunned. This seems to be the upshot of the essay - say Chitas and all will be well with your child. Does your child lack the proper soul because he came from a test tube? Say Chitas. Does your child have in utero memories from being rudely shoved into a uterus instead of arriving there the natural way? Say Chitas. Is your kid rude? Well, it must be because you didn't have the holiest of intentions during conception. It couldn't possibly be bad parenting or just simply that he's a kid and it happens sometimes. Say Chitas.
But I also seem to be left with this question: just what was his purpose in writing this essay? To stop single women from becoming parents via IVF? I highly doubt it. Firstly, most single parents end up as such the old fashioned way. Even those who deliberately want a child will usually try to find a good friend and someone whom they trust (and possibly love, even if not marriage material) to help with the conception of their child . The number of those who actually use IVF to become single parents is probably very small. And, as I mentioned, in the frum world, practically nil.
It seems to me that the article was written for, and aimed at, the frum couple who has (or is considering having) a child via IVF. But then, why write the article? I can only come up with three possible reasons:
1. He feels that couples shouldn't use IVF at all, and that it's probably better to remain childless than bring a "defective" child into the world. However, I would discount this as a motive as he makes the point that people can use IVF as an absolute last resort and in the context of marriage and Torah law.
2. He seems to think that there are frum couples who don't use IVF as an absolute last resort and that they run to the IVF center if they aren't pregnant within half a year. Otherwise, why scare people away from IVF by telling them that their children will be "defective?" However, this is patently absurd. As anyone who has gone through these treatments can tell you, they are dreadfully expensive, a lot of trouble, and painful - both physically and emotionally. And each time it doesn't work, it really hurts. I don't think that *anyone* would put themselves through IVF unless they really, really, really, really wanted a baby more than anything in the world and that there was just about no other way to have one.
3. He feels the need to tell people who have had children via IVF that their children are "defective" and that they need to recite Chitas in order to rectify this "defect." Personally, I find the idea that a child conceived in marriage to parents who love each other and who want and pray and shed tears for said child is spiritually and psychologically defective to be repugnant. But that's just my belief. If he wants to believe that they are defective, it's his right. However, there are certainly better ways to get parents to recite Chitas than by telling them that their children are "spiritual rejects" (my term, not his). I find his approach insensitive, boorish and outright offensive.
The Wolf
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
* In this post, whenever I use IVF, consider it shorthand for "IVF (or other assistive reproductive method)." I don't mean IVF to the exclusion of all other methods.
In his essay, Rabbi Friedman writes about how important the circumstances of a child's conception are. He writes that ideally, conception should occur naturally with two parents who love each other. When it occurs in circumstances other than this, he writes, there could be serious consequences. If, during conception, parents are in other than ideal circumstances (disinterested in each other, or in the hopes that there would be no child are two example that he brings) then it can harm the child psychologically and spiritually. He states that children who result from these unions feel unloved or unwanted by their parents.
And then he asks:
If it is true that a compromised intimacy hurts the child, what happens when there is no intimacy at all?
While he does not come out and say it, the implication here is that when there is no intimacy involved, it is even worse than when there is "bad intimacy." To back up his implied assertion, he brings the following example:
According to Chasidic sources, both Isaac, the patriarch of the Jews, and Habakuk, the son of the Shunamit, were born with souls from alma d'nukva or "the feminine realm." It is interesting that both were born through extraordinary, holy circumstances, and even so were lacking an essential spiritual component. It would likewise take the extraordinary, transformative experiences of the akedah (the 'binding" of Isaac), and the death-and-revival of the Shunamit's son, for their souls to be made whole. The unnatural conditions by which these individuals were conceived would require "correction" later in life. All the more so our cause for concern when this takes place in situations that are decidedly less than holy.
There is one line in his article that seems to indicate that the target of his essay is the single woman who uses IVF (or some other assisted reproductive method)* to have a child. But the reality is that the women who do so are few and far between... and in the frum world (which is the target of his essay) those people are practically non-existent. In reality, his target seems to be the Orthodox infertile couples who use (or are considering using) IVF to have children. He is, in essence, telling couples who use IVF that their children are spiritually (and possibly psychologically) defective because they weren't conceived in a spirit of love and nurture. Well, as someone I know who happens to have one of those miracle babies pointed out:
As someone who now has a miracle baby rocking in his swing right next to me, I can honestly say that he is no less loved, wanted or lacking than my two daughters who were conceived naturally.
Not to take away from my love of my daughters, but my son was prayed for. I spilled tears that I would conceive him.
In the end, Rabbi Friedman asserts, all is not lost. If you already have an IVF baby, you can easily "fix" his problems. How?
Chassidism offered an antidote in the practice of Chitas -- an acronym for Chumash (Torah), Tehillim (Psalms) and Tanya. Just by reading the words, by absorbing the images of those letters and those words and those paragraphs in daily segments, the negative repercussions of assisted reproduction may be corrected.
Now, then, I'm kind of stunned. This seems to be the upshot of the essay - say Chitas and all will be well with your child. Does your child lack the proper soul because he came from a test tube? Say Chitas. Does your child have in utero memories from being rudely shoved into a uterus instead of arriving there the natural way? Say Chitas. Is your kid rude? Well, it must be because you didn't have the holiest of intentions during conception. It couldn't possibly be bad parenting or just simply that he's a kid and it happens sometimes. Say Chitas.
But I also seem to be left with this question: just what was his purpose in writing this essay? To stop single women from becoming parents via IVF? I highly doubt it. Firstly, most single parents end up as such the old fashioned way. Even those who deliberately want a child will usually try to find a good friend and someone whom they trust (and possibly love, even if not marriage material) to help with the conception of their child . The number of those who actually use IVF to become single parents is probably very small. And, as I mentioned, in the frum world, practically nil.
It seems to me that the article was written for, and aimed at, the frum couple who has (or is considering having) a child via IVF. But then, why write the article? I can only come up with three possible reasons:
1. He feels that couples shouldn't use IVF at all, and that it's probably better to remain childless than bring a "defective" child into the world. However, I would discount this as a motive as he makes the point that people can use IVF as an absolute last resort and in the context of marriage and Torah law.
2. He seems to think that there are frum couples who don't use IVF as an absolute last resort and that they run to the IVF center if they aren't pregnant within half a year. Otherwise, why scare people away from IVF by telling them that their children will be "defective?" However, this is patently absurd. As anyone who has gone through these treatments can tell you, they are dreadfully expensive, a lot of trouble, and painful - both physically and emotionally. And each time it doesn't work, it really hurts. I don't think that *anyone* would put themselves through IVF unless they really, really, really, really wanted a baby more than anything in the world and that there was just about no other way to have one.
3. He feels the need to tell people who have had children via IVF that their children are "defective" and that they need to recite Chitas in order to rectify this "defect." Personally, I find the idea that a child conceived in marriage to parents who love each other and who want and pray and shed tears for said child is spiritually and psychologically defective to be repugnant. But that's just my belief. If he wants to believe that they are defective, it's his right. However, there are certainly better ways to get parents to recite Chitas than by telling them that their children are "spiritual rejects" (my term, not his). I find his approach insensitive, boorish and outright offensive.
The Wolf
Hat tip: OnionSoupMix
* In this post, whenever I use IVF, consider it shorthand for "IVF (or other assistive reproductive method)." I don't mean IVF to the exclusion of all other methods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)