There was a violent confrontation at the Kotel (Western Wall) today. The Women of the Wall, a women's group that prays there on Rosh Chodesh, complete with talleisim and tefillin, were preparing to daven when two people began throwing chairs at them.
Fortunately, no one was hurt. Police arrested two people for the violence.
I really don't want to get into the whole controversy regarding the Women of the Wall. I don't know enough about the motivations of the women or of those that oppose them -- not to mention the possible halachic issues to form an opinion on the matter.
What I do find very funny, however, is people's reaction to it. Consider this comment on YWN:
Except for putting on tefillin on Rosh Chodesh, do they observe any other of the 613 commandments of the Torah? Do they keep kosher? What about Shabbat? When did they stop driving to the beach on Shabbat and Chagim? Do they cover their hair with a kipah and on Shabbat do they wear a shtreimel?
Pretty strong insinuation, no? Because they want to daven with talleisim and tefillin by the Kotel, they obviously don't keep any other mitzvos.
And yet, can you imagine the same person saying the same thing about people who steal, defraud or molest children? Would he say the same thing about Kolko any of the other criminals that (sadly) would be welcome in most minyanim?
Kind of makes you wonder -- do they really think that a group of women davening with tallesim and tefillin are worse than child molesters?
The Wolf
UPDATE (12:00 PM): Of course, my comment to this effect on the YWN article didn't make it past the editors.
The Wolf
Showing posts with label yeshiva world news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yeshiva world news. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Once Again, Banning Is Not The Way To Go...
YWN is reporting that teachers/administrators in Israel are being called to meetings to learn how to deal with students who come from homes where the Internet is available. The report states:
According to the latest HaMevaser report on the Internet concerns among Gedolei Yisrael Shlita, the organization of the nation’s seminaries are planning a kinos this coming Sunday to address the pressing matter. Principals of Chinuch Atzmai affiliated mosdos are also expected to convene in the near future to address the Internet problem.
Rabbonim have indicated they will not permit talmidim in mosdos if they come from homes with Internet connectivity. The same holds true for children of people who own, operate, or maintain an affiliation with chareidi websites, which have already been ordered shut, resulting in partial compliance.
I think that there is a frighteningly large potential for this type of ban to backfire that I wonder if the gedolim are truly analyzing the potential risks/rewards of their ban.
For a community that is experiencing massive parnassah problems (more so than the world at large), the decision to order the closure of websites that employ chareidim only exacerbates the problem. Now, people who were previously employed must go out and find other jobs -- probably in environments that are not as understanding of their social and religious needs as the chareidi websites were.
A person who cannot access the Internet will probably find it harder to find a job. I don't know what the situation in Israel is like, but when I need to find a job, the Internet is the first place I go to. I would be highly surprised to find that there weren't Israeli equivilents (or branches of) Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and the like. Again, in a community where there is a large degree of poverty, we should be making it *easier* for those who are looking for jobs to find them, not harder.
By closing chareidi websites, people who used to get their news from "clean" sources will now have to go sources that are more likely to present the news in ways that the gedolim wouldn't approve of. Just to give an example... imagine that the gedolim ordered (and had the power to enforce) the closure of YWN, VIN and Matzav. What would happen? People would turn to FailedMessiah and OUJ and other sources for their news. Regardless of whether what those sites publish is true or false, I'm sure the gedolim wouldn't want people to go there for their news. The same applies to the chareidi websites -- by closing the "good" ones, they're only pushing people to ones where more salacious news will be reported. I believe this is the exact opposite of what the gedolim intended.
I also find it hard to believe that the ban is going to change the behavior of very many people. Those who were already listening to the gedolim long ago abandoned their Internet connections. Those that were already disregarding the gedolim in this regard will continue to do so. All that's going to change is that those who were accessing the Internet openly will now do so clandestinely. I think the last thing we need to be doing is setting up a situation where parents will be showing their kids that dishonesty is acceptable.* The gedolim certainly don't want to set up situations where kids will learn that it's okay to pay lip service to the words of the gedolim while secretly disobeying them behind their backs.
Then there is the issue of what will happen when a parent is caught with an internet connection. I have long been a proponent of the idea that you don't punish kids for their parents' sins. I said it with regard to Neturei Karta and I am willing to repeat it here -- unless the sin of the parent causes the kid to become a threat to the school or other students, you deal solely with the parent and not the kid. Yes, some might make the argument that the kid might see something on the Internet and repeat it to his/her classmates, etc. Hogwash. Firstly, the school can easily make a rule that *students* are not allowed to access the Internet and punish them for breaking it. Secondly, if you're going to punish the kid because he might pick up something, you can say the same thing about relatives/friends of the kids. Will you ban a kid from school because he has friends in his neighborhood with an Internet connection? Perhaps he might see something at his friend's house. What if his cousin has a TV? Maybe we should kick him out because his cousin might tell him a joke he heard on a Dick Van Dyke rerun that might make it back to the school? In other words, if you're going to kick a kid out of school because he might have secondhand access to material that you consider objectionable, then you have to extend the ban (and penalty of expulsion) quite a bit further than a parent with Internet access.
The worst part of all this is that the gedolim don't seem to realize that the battle is already lost. I can only believe that there are a significant number of chareidim in 2010 that still have Internet connectivity in their homes -- if it were a small minority, then there wouldn't be a need for such a strong public measure. If there are still a significant number of chareidim who are not willing to abandon the Internet after several years of decrees by the gedolim, then I am forced to conclude that the Internet is here to stay -- even among the chareidim.
Imagine living in a society where some people keep fierce guard dogs. The dogs are there partly as pets, but also partly for the utilitarian purpose of protecting the home from theives and other dangers. Of course, not every family has, or needs a dog. Some families may not have anything worth stealing -- and so they don't need a guard dog. Sadly, every so often, a guard dog may attack and injure a family member -- but yet a significant number of the community decide that the rewards of having the dogs around outweigh the risks. The mayor of the town, who is usually well-respected, starts speaking to people about the dangers of having the dogs around. Surely, he tells the people, you can get by without the dogs. So, some people get rid of the dogs while a significant number of them retain the dogs. Some start looking for ways to hide the dogs. Meanwhile, the families that had dogs but got rid of them begin suffering as thieves begin targeting their houses.
As time goes on, the mayor's opposition to the dogs grows. Anytime a child is taken to the hospital because of a dog bite, he takes the opportunity to hold a press conference about how badly the dogs need to go and how big a menace they are to the community. And yet, while some people heed his advice, others find the dogs too valuable to the functioning of their households to give them up. Finally, the mayor issues a law banning the dogs outright. Yet, despite that, there are still dogs in the community. Those that were inclined to heed the mayor already got rid of their dogs. Those that didn't, didn't. And so, even though the dogs are hidden, some people still managed to get attacked by dogs. Usually, it's in the dog-owning families, but occasionally, someone from a non-dog family might be attacked as well. And, of course, the thieves continue to strike because there are fewer guard dogs.
What's the next course of action to take?
The ideal course of action would be to understand that the dogs are necessary to the functioning of the neighborhood. Some people need the dogs to fend off the burglars and will not give them up. But by allowing people to have the dogs, you then have the opporutnity to encourage (and perhaps even mandate) training in dog-handling. You can teach people in the community how to react when a dog comes running down the street barking fiercely. You can teach the members of the community when and how to avoid the dogs, how to properly treat the dogs and how to properly use them. IMHO, education about the proper usage of dogs or the internet or anything else that is going to be encountered in life is the safest way to go. Will someone in this community still suffer the occasional dog attack? Certainly - but that's a far cry better than the situation they're in now.
The Wolf
* Note that this does not excuse parents from their actions -- but we shouldn't be intentionally setting up situations where this will happen on a large scale.
According to the latest HaMevaser report on the Internet concerns among Gedolei Yisrael Shlita, the organization of the nation’s seminaries are planning a kinos this coming Sunday to address the pressing matter. Principals of Chinuch Atzmai affiliated mosdos are also expected to convene in the near future to address the Internet problem.
Rabbonim have indicated they will not permit talmidim in mosdos if they come from homes with Internet connectivity. The same holds true for children of people who own, operate, or maintain an affiliation with chareidi websites, which have already been ordered shut, resulting in partial compliance.
I think that there is a frighteningly large potential for this type of ban to backfire that I wonder if the gedolim are truly analyzing the potential risks/rewards of their ban.
For a community that is experiencing massive parnassah problems (more so than the world at large), the decision to order the closure of websites that employ chareidim only exacerbates the problem. Now, people who were previously employed must go out and find other jobs -- probably in environments that are not as understanding of their social and religious needs as the chareidi websites were.
A person who cannot access the Internet will probably find it harder to find a job. I don't know what the situation in Israel is like, but when I need to find a job, the Internet is the first place I go to. I would be highly surprised to find that there weren't Israeli equivilents (or branches of) Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and the like. Again, in a community where there is a large degree of poverty, we should be making it *easier* for those who are looking for jobs to find them, not harder.
By closing chareidi websites, people who used to get their news from "clean" sources will now have to go sources that are more likely to present the news in ways that the gedolim wouldn't approve of. Just to give an example... imagine that the gedolim ordered (and had the power to enforce) the closure of YWN, VIN and Matzav. What would happen? People would turn to FailedMessiah and OUJ and other sources for their news. Regardless of whether what those sites publish is true or false, I'm sure the gedolim wouldn't want people to go there for their news. The same applies to the chareidi websites -- by closing the "good" ones, they're only pushing people to ones where more salacious news will be reported. I believe this is the exact opposite of what the gedolim intended.
I also find it hard to believe that the ban is going to change the behavior of very many people. Those who were already listening to the gedolim long ago abandoned their Internet connections. Those that were already disregarding the gedolim in this regard will continue to do so. All that's going to change is that those who were accessing the Internet openly will now do so clandestinely. I think the last thing we need to be doing is setting up a situation where parents will be showing their kids that dishonesty is acceptable.* The gedolim certainly don't want to set up situations where kids will learn that it's okay to pay lip service to the words of the gedolim while secretly disobeying them behind their backs.
Then there is the issue of what will happen when a parent is caught with an internet connection. I have long been a proponent of the idea that you don't punish kids for their parents' sins. I said it with regard to Neturei Karta and I am willing to repeat it here -- unless the sin of the parent causes the kid to become a threat to the school or other students, you deal solely with the parent and not the kid. Yes, some might make the argument that the kid might see something on the Internet and repeat it to his/her classmates, etc. Hogwash. Firstly, the school can easily make a rule that *students* are not allowed to access the Internet and punish them for breaking it. Secondly, if you're going to punish the kid because he might pick up something, you can say the same thing about relatives/friends of the kids. Will you ban a kid from school because he has friends in his neighborhood with an Internet connection? Perhaps he might see something at his friend's house. What if his cousin has a TV? Maybe we should kick him out because his cousin might tell him a joke he heard on a Dick Van Dyke rerun that might make it back to the school? In other words, if you're going to kick a kid out of school because he might have secondhand access to material that you consider objectionable, then you have to extend the ban (and penalty of expulsion) quite a bit further than a parent with Internet access.
The worst part of all this is that the gedolim don't seem to realize that the battle is already lost. I can only believe that there are a significant number of chareidim in 2010 that still have Internet connectivity in their homes -- if it were a small minority, then there wouldn't be a need for such a strong public measure. If there are still a significant number of chareidim who are not willing to abandon the Internet after several years of decrees by the gedolim, then I am forced to conclude that the Internet is here to stay -- even among the chareidim.
Imagine living in a society where some people keep fierce guard dogs. The dogs are there partly as pets, but also partly for the utilitarian purpose of protecting the home from theives and other dangers. Of course, not every family has, or needs a dog. Some families may not have anything worth stealing -- and so they don't need a guard dog. Sadly, every so often, a guard dog may attack and injure a family member -- but yet a significant number of the community decide that the rewards of having the dogs around outweigh the risks. The mayor of the town, who is usually well-respected, starts speaking to people about the dangers of having the dogs around. Surely, he tells the people, you can get by without the dogs. So, some people get rid of the dogs while a significant number of them retain the dogs. Some start looking for ways to hide the dogs. Meanwhile, the families that had dogs but got rid of them begin suffering as thieves begin targeting their houses.
As time goes on, the mayor's opposition to the dogs grows. Anytime a child is taken to the hospital because of a dog bite, he takes the opportunity to hold a press conference about how badly the dogs need to go and how big a menace they are to the community. And yet, while some people heed his advice, others find the dogs too valuable to the functioning of their households to give them up. Finally, the mayor issues a law banning the dogs outright. Yet, despite that, there are still dogs in the community. Those that were inclined to heed the mayor already got rid of their dogs. Those that didn't, didn't. And so, even though the dogs are hidden, some people still managed to get attacked by dogs. Usually, it's in the dog-owning families, but occasionally, someone from a non-dog family might be attacked as well. And, of course, the thieves continue to strike because there are fewer guard dogs.
What's the next course of action to take?
The ideal course of action would be to understand that the dogs are necessary to the functioning of the neighborhood. Some people need the dogs to fend off the burglars and will not give them up. But by allowing people to have the dogs, you then have the opporutnity to encourage (and perhaps even mandate) training in dog-handling. You can teach people in the community how to react when a dog comes running down the street barking fiercely. You can teach the members of the community when and how to avoid the dogs, how to properly treat the dogs and how to properly use them. IMHO, education about the proper usage of dogs or the internet or anything else that is going to be encountered in life is the safest way to go. Will someone in this community still suffer the occasional dog attack? Certainly - but that's a far cry better than the situation they're in now.
The Wolf
* Note that this does not excuse parents from their actions -- but we shouldn't be intentionally setting up situations where this will happen on a large scale.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
OK, But Why Is It Forbidden?
Yeshiva World News is reporting that several rabbanim in Israel (including Rav Wosner, Rav Eliyashiv and others) have ruled that one is not permitted to use Shabbos elevators. In their statement, they state that using such elevators on Shabbos violates an issur d'orissa (a Torah prohibition -- as opposed to a "mere" rabbinic prohibition).
The decree states that the ruling was reached after consulting with technicians and engineers that work on such systems. Personally, that's fine... I'm glad to see that the rabbonim are doing due diligience to ascertain the halacha (although please see the comment by Rav Rosen of the Zomet Institute in the original article). However, I was disappointed to see that there was no actual explaination given for the decree.
I know that there are some of you who will scream and yell "Rav Wosner doesn't owe you an explaination! He knows more Torah in his pinky than you'll know in your lifetime..." On the surface, I suppose that's true. Rav Wosner et al don't owe me an explanation. They don't *have* to tell me how they arrived at their conclusion that Shabbos elevators are forbidden.
Nonetheless, I think that an explaination of how the ruling was arrived at would be highly beneficial for several reasons:
1. It will increase compliance. Let's face it, today we're living in a world where you can freely choose to listen to the gedolim or ignore them. There will be those who will blindly listen to Rav Wosner and those who will choose to ignore him and continue using the elevators. But there's also a group in the middle - a group that won't blindly listen to the gedolim because of past (real or imagined) instences of "chumra abuse," but will listen to them where there are sound halachic reasons to do so. They may look at this latest decree as merely another chumra (despite the fact that the decree says it's an issur d'orissa) and choose to ignore it -- but when presented with solid halachic and technical grounds for observing it, they will do so. This will especially be the case where observing the ban will cause a great hardship -- infirm people who will, effectively, become prisioners in their homes for Shabbos or visitors to hospitals and other such institutions.
2. It will encourage Torah learning. When people see a decree like this, it's basically a "black box" type of decree -- you know that technical and halachic details went into the box, but you have no idea how the output (the ruling) was generated. As such, as a tool for Torah learning, it is very poor.* It could be made a much greater tool for Torah learning if the inner workings of the box were exposed and people could see how the ruling was arrived at.
3. It could result in a reversal. I know I'm going to tread on what some would consider to be hallowed ground here but, let's face it -- for all their learning (which is, by any measure, extremely great), there is the possibility that Rav Wosner et al made an error. By allowing for others to see how the ruling was arrived at, it's possible that someone could spot something or think of a possibility that Rav Wosner et al missed. I would think that especially in a case like this, where the ruling is going to cause significant hardships for some, that would want to possibly find ways to permit the use of these elevators if at all possible. By allowing more people to see the ruling, you allow a greater chance of finding just such a hetter that Rav Wosner can then consider.
There are those who will argue that it's demeaning to the gedolim to demand that they explain their rulings. There are those who will say that to do so is to possibly lead to a denigration of the gedolim by those who don't agree with their position.
To them I simply say to open up a copy of the Igros Moshe to almost page. Therein, one will find how R. Moshe Feinstein took pains to not only provide rulings on questions, but to explain those rulings, sometimes in painful detail. It was not beneath R. Moshe to do so... and even when people disagree with his rulings, it's done with respect. I don't see any reason why today's gedolim should be any different. For the reasons I listed above, I believe a reason should be given as to why shabbos elevators are forbidden. It doesn't have to be highly technical or highly detailed, but it should be enough that a person with a decent yeshiva background should be able to understand the ruling and "replicate" the results themselves.
The Wolf
* Yes, I know the ruling wasn't designed to be a Torah-teaching tool. But is there any real reason why it shouldn't be?
The decree states that the ruling was reached after consulting with technicians and engineers that work on such systems. Personally, that's fine... I'm glad to see that the rabbonim are doing due diligience to ascertain the halacha (although please see the comment by Rav Rosen of the Zomet Institute in the original article). However, I was disappointed to see that there was no actual explaination given for the decree.
I know that there are some of you who will scream and yell "Rav Wosner doesn't owe you an explaination! He knows more Torah in his pinky than you'll know in your lifetime..." On the surface, I suppose that's true. Rav Wosner et al don't owe me an explanation. They don't *have* to tell me how they arrived at their conclusion that Shabbos elevators are forbidden.
Nonetheless, I think that an explaination of how the ruling was arrived at would be highly beneficial for several reasons:
1. It will increase compliance. Let's face it, today we're living in a world where you can freely choose to listen to the gedolim or ignore them. There will be those who will blindly listen to Rav Wosner and those who will choose to ignore him and continue using the elevators. But there's also a group in the middle - a group that won't blindly listen to the gedolim because of past (real or imagined) instences of "chumra abuse," but will listen to them where there are sound halachic reasons to do so. They may look at this latest decree as merely another chumra (despite the fact that the decree says it's an issur d'orissa) and choose to ignore it -- but when presented with solid halachic and technical grounds for observing it, they will do so. This will especially be the case where observing the ban will cause a great hardship -- infirm people who will, effectively, become prisioners in their homes for Shabbos or visitors to hospitals and other such institutions.
2. It will encourage Torah learning. When people see a decree like this, it's basically a "black box" type of decree -- you know that technical and halachic details went into the box, but you have no idea how the output (the ruling) was generated. As such, as a tool for Torah learning, it is very poor.* It could be made a much greater tool for Torah learning if the inner workings of the box were exposed and people could see how the ruling was arrived at.
3. It could result in a reversal. I know I'm going to tread on what some would consider to be hallowed ground here but, let's face it -- for all their learning (which is, by any measure, extremely great), there is the possibility that Rav Wosner et al made an error. By allowing for others to see how the ruling was arrived at, it's possible that someone could spot something or think of a possibility that Rav Wosner et al missed. I would think that especially in a case like this, where the ruling is going to cause significant hardships for some, that would want to possibly find ways to permit the use of these elevators if at all possible. By allowing more people to see the ruling, you allow a greater chance of finding just such a hetter that Rav Wosner can then consider.
There are those who will argue that it's demeaning to the gedolim to demand that they explain their rulings. There are those who will say that to do so is to possibly lead to a denigration of the gedolim by those who don't agree with their position.
To them I simply say to open up a copy of the Igros Moshe to almost page. Therein, one will find how R. Moshe Feinstein took pains to not only provide rulings on questions, but to explain those rulings, sometimes in painful detail. It was not beneath R. Moshe to do so... and even when people disagree with his rulings, it's done with respect. I don't see any reason why today's gedolim should be any different. For the reasons I listed above, I believe a reason should be given as to why shabbos elevators are forbidden. It doesn't have to be highly technical or highly detailed, but it should be enough that a person with a decent yeshiva background should be able to understand the ruling and "replicate" the results themselves.
The Wolf
* Yes, I know the ruling wasn't designed to be a Torah-teaching tool. But is there any real reason why it shouldn't be?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Kennedy Curse
As I'm sure you've heard by now, Senator Edward Kennedy from Massachusetts passed away this morning at the age of 77 after losing his battle with brain cancer.
I don't normally blog politics (especially American politics), but I do blog faulty reasoning, and so I will take the occasion to address an issue that surrounds the Kennedys, especially when it comes to Orthodox Jews.
The issue at hand is the famous "Kennedy Curse." In the threads on YWN and VIN, commentators once again brought up "the curse."
There are various stories of how the curse started. All the stories (or at least the stories that originate from the Jewish world) involve a famous rabbi who was either insulted or rebuffed by Joseph (or Rose) Kennedy. They were then cursed by that Rabbi that their family should suffer for it.
Rose Kennedy managed to live a long life and as three of her sons and one of her daughters predeceased her, the going rumor was that she was cursed that all of her children should die before her. Her death in 1995 ended that aspect of the legend.
Truth to tell, the story has all the earmarks of an urban legend. The name of the rabbi who cursed the Kennedys changes from one telling to the next (it's most often mentioned as the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe -- but not always), as does why the curse was originally pronounced. In addition, there is no (or at least not to my knowledge) firm documented source describing the origin of the curse. In short, it sounds all too much like an urban legend.
But putting that aside, let's ask the question -- is the curse real? The Kennedys, as we all know, have lost quite a few family members in high-profile deaths. The fact is that the average age of death of the eight deceased Kennedy children (Jean is still alive) is just under 60 years -- a rather low figure in today's day and age. Of course, even that number is misleading because the average life expectancy was much lower when some of the Kennedy children died long ago.
While it's true that some Joseph and Rose Kennedy's nine children have died young, let's consider for the moment that all of them survived to adulthood. The Kennedy children are of the same generation as my grandparents. All four of my grandparents were born in the United States. Of the four of them, three lost siblings as children. I think that if most people who had grandparents growing up in the United States at that time do a little research, they will find that many (if not most) of them lost siblings during childhood. Infant and child mortality in those days was quite high and, unfortunately, losing a child was not as uncommon as it is today -- especially in families with a lot of children such as the Kennedys. So, right off the bat, I'd have to say that the fact that all of Joseph and Rose's children made it to adulthood shows that they were doing far better than many other families of the time.
That being said, let's look at the children. The Kennedys had nine children:
Of the nine children, four failed to see their fiftieth birthday (although, of the five that did, all reached at least 77 years of age). One more, Rosemary, spent almost all of her life in an institution.
But let's look at the four who died young and examine the circumstances of their deaths:
Joesph Jr. was a student at Harvard Law when World War II began. He left Harvard a year early and took officer and pilot training in the Navy. He piloted 25 combat missions during World War II and was eligible to return home.
Instead, he volunteered for a highly dangerous mission which entailed flying an explosive-laden plane with a skeleton crew which would then parachute out of the plane before detonation. It was on this mission that he was killed.
Three Kennedy sons served in World War II (Edward was only twelve when the war ended) and two survived. Many families lost sons in the war and some lost more than one child (the Sullivans famously lost five on a single ship). In that respect, I would not say that the Kennedys were cursed any more than any other family that lost a son in combat during World War II.
John Kennedy went on to become the 35th President of the United States -- the youngest man ever to be elected to the office. He served from January 1961 until his assassination in 1963.
During the course of our nation's history, 43 different men have served as President of the United States. Of those eight did not leave the office alive -- four of them were killed by assassin's bullets and the other four became ill and died. Another two recent presidents (Ford and Reagan) survived assassination attempts. In other words, about 19% of the people who took the office did not survive. Clearly, being President of the United States is a dangerous job. Aside from the enormous pressures of the job, there are always people who will want to kill the president -- from foreign terrorists to partisan nutcases (on both sides) to people who are just plain kooks. The upshot of all this is that the job of President is a high-risk occupation and as with all high-risk occupations, the fact that someone dies in that job is not the sign of a curse.
Kathleen married the Marquess of Hartington (and the heir to the dukedom of Devonshire) in 1944. She married against the will of her family and aside from Joseph Jr., no one in the family attended her wedding. Sadly, the Marquess was killed in World War II after only four months of marriage. She ended up becoming involved with a married gentleman of the British peerage who was in the process of divorcing his wife with the intent to marry him once his divorce was final. That marriage never happened because Kathleen died in a plane crash in France in 1948.
The fourth of the Kennedy children to die before their seventy fifth birthday was Robert. Robert was the junior senator from New York in 1968 and was running for the Democratic nomination for President. He had just won the California primary when he was assassinated by a young Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan. Robert Kennedy was a high profile individual (former Attorney General, Senator from New York and candidate for President) and, as such, was, like John, a high profile target.
The other five Kennedy children all survived until at least 77 years of age. Of the nine children of Joseph and Rose Kennedy, seven married and six had children -- John had two surviving children, Eunice had five, Patricia had four, Robert had eleven, Jean had four and Edward had three. In total Rose and Joseph Kennedy had twenty nine grandchildren, most of whom have since married and had kids of their own.
In addition, the Kennedys became one of the premiere political families in the United States. Three of the Kennedy children became Senators and one became the President. Their grandchildren include a former Lt. Governor, at least two members of the House of Representatives and other political positions. For a family that has been cursed, they have been tremendously successful.
There are people who will point to other misfortunes that the extended Kennedy family has borne: the skiing death in 1997 of Michael Kennedy, the rape accusation against William Kennedy Smith, the car accident in 1969 that ended Edward's chances of becoming President and the airplane crash that ended the life of John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999.
I'm not at all certain that these events are out of the ordinary for a family as large as the Kennedys and that engage in the activities that the Kennedys engage in. Many families have unfortunately lost people in skiing accidents and many families tragically lose people in airplane accidents. However, in most cases, unless the person is famous (or belongs to a famous family) these events are usually unreported or forgotten shortly thereafter. I firmly believe that if you sample other families as numerous as the Kennedys that engage in similar activities, you will probably find similar results.
In short, the Kennedys have suffered tragedy over the years -- but I'm not convinced that it's so different from the tragedies that another family might have faced with the same numbers and similar circumstances.
The Wolf
I don't normally blog politics (especially American politics), but I do blog faulty reasoning, and so I will take the occasion to address an issue that surrounds the Kennedys, especially when it comes to Orthodox Jews.
The issue at hand is the famous "Kennedy Curse." In the threads on YWN and VIN, commentators once again brought up "the curse."
There are various stories of how the curse started. All the stories (or at least the stories that originate from the Jewish world) involve a famous rabbi who was either insulted or rebuffed by Joseph (or Rose) Kennedy. They were then cursed by that Rabbi that their family should suffer for it.
Rose Kennedy managed to live a long life and as three of her sons and one of her daughters predeceased her, the going rumor was that she was cursed that all of her children should die before her. Her death in 1995 ended that aspect of the legend.
Truth to tell, the story has all the earmarks of an urban legend. The name of the rabbi who cursed the Kennedys changes from one telling to the next (it's most often mentioned as the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe -- but not always), as does why the curse was originally pronounced. In addition, there is no (or at least not to my knowledge) firm documented source describing the origin of the curse. In short, it sounds all too much like an urban legend.
But putting that aside, let's ask the question -- is the curse real? The Kennedys, as we all know, have lost quite a few family members in high-profile deaths. The fact is that the average age of death of the eight deceased Kennedy children (Jean is still alive) is just under 60 years -- a rather low figure in today's day and age. Of course, even that number is misleading because the average life expectancy was much lower when some of the Kennedy children died long ago.
While it's true that some Joseph and Rose Kennedy's nine children have died young, let's consider for the moment that all of them survived to adulthood. The Kennedy children are of the same generation as my grandparents. All four of my grandparents were born in the United States. Of the four of them, three lost siblings as children. I think that if most people who had grandparents growing up in the United States at that time do a little research, they will find that many (if not most) of them lost siblings during childhood. Infant and child mortality in those days was quite high and, unfortunately, losing a child was not as uncommon as it is today -- especially in families with a lot of children such as the Kennedys. So, right off the bat, I'd have to say that the fact that all of Joseph and Rose's children made it to adulthood shows that they were doing far better than many other families of the time.
That being said, let's look at the children. The Kennedys had nine children:
- Joseph Jr. -- died in World War II, aged 29
- John -- shot in Dallas in 1963, aged 46
- Rosemary -- lobotomized and institutionalized, died at age 86
- Kathleen -- died in a plane crash at age 28
- Euncie -- died about two weeks ago at age 88
- Patricia -- died in 2006 at age 82
- Robert -- shot in San Francisco in 1968, aged 42
- Jean -- still living today, aged 81
- Edward -- died yesterday, aged 77
Of the nine children, four failed to see their fiftieth birthday (although, of the five that did, all reached at least 77 years of age). One more, Rosemary, spent almost all of her life in an institution.
But let's look at the four who died young and examine the circumstances of their deaths:
Joesph Jr. was a student at Harvard Law when World War II began. He left Harvard a year early and took officer and pilot training in the Navy. He piloted 25 combat missions during World War II and was eligible to return home.
Instead, he volunteered for a highly dangerous mission which entailed flying an explosive-laden plane with a skeleton crew which would then parachute out of the plane before detonation. It was on this mission that he was killed.
Three Kennedy sons served in World War II (Edward was only twelve when the war ended) and two survived. Many families lost sons in the war and some lost more than one child (the Sullivans famously lost five on a single ship). In that respect, I would not say that the Kennedys were cursed any more than any other family that lost a son in combat during World War II.
John Kennedy went on to become the 35th President of the United States -- the youngest man ever to be elected to the office. He served from January 1961 until his assassination in 1963.
During the course of our nation's history, 43 different men have served as President of the United States. Of those eight did not leave the office alive -- four of them were killed by assassin's bullets and the other four became ill and died. Another two recent presidents (Ford and Reagan) survived assassination attempts. In other words, about 19% of the people who took the office did not survive. Clearly, being President of the United States is a dangerous job. Aside from the enormous pressures of the job, there are always people who will want to kill the president -- from foreign terrorists to partisan nutcases (on both sides) to people who are just plain kooks. The upshot of all this is that the job of President is a high-risk occupation and as with all high-risk occupations, the fact that someone dies in that job is not the sign of a curse.
Kathleen married the Marquess of Hartington (and the heir to the dukedom of Devonshire) in 1944. She married against the will of her family and aside from Joseph Jr., no one in the family attended her wedding. Sadly, the Marquess was killed in World War II after only four months of marriage. She ended up becoming involved with a married gentleman of the British peerage who was in the process of divorcing his wife with the intent to marry him once his divorce was final. That marriage never happened because Kathleen died in a plane crash in France in 1948.
The fourth of the Kennedy children to die before their seventy fifth birthday was Robert. Robert was the junior senator from New York in 1968 and was running for the Democratic nomination for President. He had just won the California primary when he was assassinated by a young Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan. Robert Kennedy was a high profile individual (former Attorney General, Senator from New York and candidate for President) and, as such, was, like John, a high profile target.
The other five Kennedy children all survived until at least 77 years of age. Of the nine children of Joseph and Rose Kennedy, seven married and six had children -- John had two surviving children, Eunice had five, Patricia had four, Robert had eleven, Jean had four and Edward had three. In total Rose and Joseph Kennedy had twenty nine grandchildren, most of whom have since married and had kids of their own.
In addition, the Kennedys became one of the premiere political families in the United States. Three of the Kennedy children became Senators and one became the President. Their grandchildren include a former Lt. Governor, at least two members of the House of Representatives and other political positions. For a family that has been cursed, they have been tremendously successful.
There are people who will point to other misfortunes that the extended Kennedy family has borne: the skiing death in 1997 of Michael Kennedy, the rape accusation against William Kennedy Smith, the car accident in 1969 that ended Edward's chances of becoming President and the airplane crash that ended the life of John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999.
I'm not at all certain that these events are out of the ordinary for a family as large as the Kennedys and that engage in the activities that the Kennedys engage in. Many families have unfortunately lost people in skiing accidents and many families tragically lose people in airplane accidents. However, in most cases, unless the person is famous (or belongs to a famous family) these events are usually unreported or forgotten shortly thereafter. I firmly believe that if you sample other families as numerous as the Kennedys that engage in similar activities, you will probably find similar results.
In short, the Kennedys have suffered tragedy over the years -- but I'm not convinced that it's so different from the tragedies that another family might have faced with the same numbers and similar circumstances.
The Wolf
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
These Are "Tough Questions??"
Yeshiva World News has a recording of some questions that were raised at the recent Torah U'Mesorah convention. About a thousand rabbeim, principals and others involved in Torah education got to ask the Roshei Yeshiva questions. What were the burning issues that were discussed? What were the "tough questions" (as indicated by the YWN headline) that were asked?
Now, I don't want to denigrate the questions. The questions asked are certainly valid questions and should be asked. However, I would think that if you have the opportunity to have such esteemed Roshei Yeshiva as Rav Avrohom Chaim Levine Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Telsh Chicago), Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Philadelphia), Novaminsker Rebbe Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Novaminsk) and Rav Aron Feldman Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Ner Yisroel Baltimore) on hand, you could find far tougher and more important questions to ask. Here are two far tougher questions that I (who, aside from being a parent, is not involved in chinuch) could think of off the top of my head:
The Wolf
P.S. There's still time to enter the contest to win a signed print of one of my photos. Click here.
- Does a Rebbe taking his class out for a day (such as to play ball on Lag B'Omer) consitute Bittul Torah?
- Should the "Chinuch Roundtable" columns in the Yated be discontinued?
- Should a child who has poor reading skills be allowed to be a Chazzan in school?
Now, I don't want to denigrate the questions. The questions asked are certainly valid questions and should be asked. However, I would think that if you have the opportunity to have such esteemed Roshei Yeshiva as Rav Avrohom Chaim Levine Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Telsh Chicago), Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Philadelphia), Novaminsker Rebbe Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Novaminsk) and Rav Aron Feldman Shlita (Rosh Yeshiva Ner Yisroel Baltimore) on hand, you could find far tougher and more important questions to ask. Here are two far tougher questions that I (who, aside from being a parent, is not involved in chinuch) could think of off the top of my head:
- I suspect that a child in my class may be being abused either at home or by another teacher in the yeshiva. What's the appropriate course of action to take?
- Under what conditions should I be allowed to ask the menahel to remove a disruptive child from my class? What options do I have to exhaust first before taking that step?
The Wolf
P.S. There's still time to enter the contest to win a signed print of one of my photos. Click here.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Still Homeless After Three Years? Can Someone Please Explain This?
Yeshiva World News is reporting that, three years after people were booted out of their homes in Gush Katif, at least some of the former residents are still homeless and without a livelihood.
Now, I'll admit that I'm certainly not familiar with all the facts on the ground. Perhaps there is some information that I am missing that would help to make this phenomenon explainable. But, on the surface, I can't see how otherwise healthy individuals and families can still be homeless three years after a forced evacuation. Is there something that is preventing them from getting jobs and renting an apartment somewhere? Is there some legal barrier to their moving into another city in Israel? Are there some exceptional circumstances that prevent them from moving on with their lives?
Barring some odd situation or legal barrier, I can't imagine why people would still be homeless three years later. Can someone please try to help me understand this.
The Wolf
Now, I'll admit that I'm certainly not familiar with all the facts on the ground. Perhaps there is some information that I am missing that would help to make this phenomenon explainable. But, on the surface, I can't see how otherwise healthy individuals and families can still be homeless three years after a forced evacuation. Is there something that is preventing them from getting jobs and renting an apartment somewhere? Is there some legal barrier to their moving into another city in Israel? Are there some exceptional circumstances that prevent them from moving on with their lives?
Barring some odd situation or legal barrier, I can't imagine why people would still be homeless three years later. Can someone please try to help me understand this.
The Wolf
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
You've Got To Love The YWN Commentators...
As many of you know, the city created dedicated bike lanes in several parts of the city. One of the new bike lanes runs along Kent Street, in Williamsburg. Some of the local residents, fearful of the effects of untzniously-clad cyclists in their neighborhood, have asked the city to remove them.
The cyclists have decided to "fight back" in a rather unique and innovative way. They held a "protest" by dressing up as clowns. They arrived in their clown costumes (and bikes) and rode down to the lane.
Since the primary group fighting against the Kent Street bike lane is the hasidic community, YWN covered the story. As with most YWN stories, commentators are free to comment. Sure enough, it didn't take long for someone to throw out the dreaded "A" word. The very first comment (by Flatbush Bubby) read as follows:
They have to be anti-semites to want to do something like this.
Yes, that's right Flatbush Bubby. Anyone who wants to have a bike lane in Williamsburg must be an antisemite. After all, we all know that bicycling in Williamsburg is a terrible act of Jew-hatred. Heaven forfend that someone might have a disagreement with a Jew on whether or not bicyclists can or should ride through a Jewish neighborhood -- after all, anyone who doesn't go along with your groupthink must be an antisemite.
Seriously... sometimes I think we should require a "common sense" test before allowing people on the Internet.
The Wolf
The cyclists have decided to "fight back" in a rather unique and innovative way. They held a "protest" by dressing up as clowns. They arrived in their clown costumes (and bikes) and rode down to the lane.
Since the primary group fighting against the Kent Street bike lane is the hasidic community, YWN covered the story. As with most YWN stories, commentators are free to comment. Sure enough, it didn't take long for someone to throw out the dreaded "A" word. The very first comment (by Flatbush Bubby) read as follows:
They have to be anti-semites to want to do something like this.
Yes, that's right Flatbush Bubby. Anyone who wants to have a bike lane in Williamsburg must be an antisemite. After all, we all know that bicycling in Williamsburg is a terrible act of Jew-hatred. Heaven forfend that someone might have a disagreement with a Jew on whether or not bicyclists can or should ride through a Jewish neighborhood -- after all, anyone who doesn't go along with your groupthink must be an antisemite.
Seriously... sometimes I think we should require a "common sense" test before allowing people on the Internet.
The Wolf
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
LaLaLaLaLaLa I'm Sticking My Hands In My Ears And I Don't Hear You!!
An interesting discussion has come up in the YWN Coffeeroom regarding women learning Gemara and other such subjects. In stating why women shouldn't learn Gemara, one poster quoted the Torah Temimah*:
Girls do not have the intellectual stability and are, therefore, unable to make profound inquries with a sharp mind and appreciate the depth of the Torah. It is possible thay by using their own minds, they will transgress the Torah.
Other, similar quotes were brought as well. One woman responded that the quotes:
were from a time when women did not go to Yeshivah, and basically knew nothing except possibly how to daven from a siddur. They learned the laws of Taharas Hamishpacha, how to kasher meat, bensch licht and take hafrasha when they would bake challah, but other than that, learning was done only by males.
To this, the response was:
The quoted meforshim are 100% Toras Emes. As true today, as the day it was written.
I sometimes find it completely amazing that otherwise intelligent human beings are unable to perceive the context in which a statement is made and assume that it applies at all times, in all places, in all cultures and in all circumstances. They think that rabbanim make statements in a vacuum, completely uninfluenced by their surroundings or their personal biases.** The very possibility that a rabbi suggested that a woman might be unable to make "profound inquiries" because in that place and time women were, by and large, uneducated, is not even a remote possibility.
Of course, like all people, these people may sometimes be confronted by reality. They may find it necessary one day (perhaps for the purpose of earning a livelihood, or for some other reason) to venture out of their own daled amos and they may run across a woman with a brain cell or two. They may even find that women have the ability to be every bit as smart as (and smarter than) men. They may find that there are women lawyers (for example) who can formulate a complicated question and who can follow a complex topic. They may find female doctors who can analyze data from multiple sources and come to a logical, reasoned conclusion. They may even find (assuming that they are willing to talk to a woman long enough to allow her to string a few sentences together) that the reality today is simply not as the Torah Temimah saw it in his day. So, what does he do then? How can he reconcile the apparent reality with the words of the Torah Temimah, which he sees as eternally true in all times and all places?
He (figuratively, of course) closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "La La La La La La I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!) at the top of his lungs. In this way, the eternity and truthfulness of the Torah (as he sees it) is preserved.
How sad.
The Wolf
Related Posts:
Orthodox Jews And Ferengi: Two Of A Kind? (re: women being excluded from learning)
Parody Or Touch Of Reality (re: women being excluded from learning)
Admas Kodesh Hu (It Is Holy Land) (re: mothers excluded from a learning camp's campgrounds)
* NB: I haven't checked the source inside.
** Rabbis have personal biases??!! Perish the thought!
Girls do not have the intellectual stability and are, therefore, unable to make profound inquries with a sharp mind and appreciate the depth of the Torah. It is possible thay by using their own minds, they will transgress the Torah.
Other, similar quotes were brought as well. One woman responded that the quotes:
were from a time when women did not go to Yeshivah, and basically knew nothing except possibly how to daven from a siddur. They learned the laws of Taharas Hamishpacha, how to kasher meat, bensch licht and take hafrasha when they would bake challah, but other than that, learning was done only by males.
To this, the response was:
The quoted meforshim are 100% Toras Emes. As true today, as the day it was written.
I sometimes find it completely amazing that otherwise intelligent human beings are unable to perceive the context in which a statement is made and assume that it applies at all times, in all places, in all cultures and in all circumstances. They think that rabbanim make statements in a vacuum, completely uninfluenced by their surroundings or their personal biases.** The very possibility that a rabbi suggested that a woman might be unable to make "profound inquiries" because in that place and time women were, by and large, uneducated, is not even a remote possibility.
Of course, like all people, these people may sometimes be confronted by reality. They may find it necessary one day (perhaps for the purpose of earning a livelihood, or for some other reason) to venture out of their own daled amos and they may run across a woman with a brain cell or two. They may even find that women have the ability to be every bit as smart as (and smarter than) men. They may find that there are women lawyers (for example) who can formulate a complicated question and who can follow a complex topic. They may find female doctors who can analyze data from multiple sources and come to a logical, reasoned conclusion. They may even find (assuming that they are willing to talk to a woman long enough to allow her to string a few sentences together) that the reality today is simply not as the Torah Temimah saw it in his day. So, what does he do then? How can he reconcile the apparent reality with the words of the Torah Temimah, which he sees as eternally true in all times and all places?
He (figuratively, of course) closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "La La La La La La I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!) at the top of his lungs. In this way, the eternity and truthfulness of the Torah (as he sees it) is preserved.
How sad.
The Wolf
Related Posts:
Orthodox Jews And Ferengi: Two Of A Kind? (re: women being excluded from learning)
Parody Or Touch Of Reality (re: women being excluded from learning)
Admas Kodesh Hu (It Is Holy Land) (re: mothers excluded from a learning camp's campgrounds)
* NB: I haven't checked the source inside.
** Rabbis have personal biases??!! Perish the thought!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The 'If Only One...' Fallacy
There is an argument that occasionally comes up when discussing communal policy. I call the argument the "if only one..." argument. The basic thrust of the argument is as follows: If only one life/soul is saved by implementing policy X, we should do so.
One of the latest examples comes from this Yeshiva World News article concerning teens and cell phones. One commenter said (bolding mine):
r’ webber is absolutely right as is the hanhala of bais shaindel but i ask all readers and comment posters if even one neshoma is lost due to texting or internet isn’t that reason enough for the small sacrafice of voice only phones for all of us and anyone saying that they know better is to blame for all future destruction caused by this epidemic
The fallacy of this argument is that it could be applied to almost anything. For example, perhaps we should outlaw the use of cars (except emergency vehicles). After all, if even one life can be saved, shouldn't that be reason enough?
The fact of the matter is that every activity that we engage in has a specific amount of risk. Every time a person gets into a car (or walks down the street, or plays baseball, or eats, etc.) there is a small possibility that the activity will cost them their life, God forbid. Yet we, as a society, determine that we're going to accept a certain number of fatalities for engaging in this activity. About 42,000 people die per year in car accidents. Shouldn't we invoke the doctrine of v'nishmartem m'od l'nafshoseichem and ban car driving (again, except for emergency vehicles)?
I don't know the number of people who die from alcohol poisoning on Purim, but shouldn't we ban it even if only one person could be saved?
Heck, perhaps we should prevent our kids from coming into contact with any other kids. After all, if even we can save one neshoma from coming into contact with a bad influence and going off the derech, shouldn't we accept that small sacrifice?
Of course, the above questions are ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that we, as a society, have determined that having the benefits of automobiles available to all of us is worth the 42,000 lives that it costs each year. We, as a society, have determined that the value of being able to drink on Purim is worth the possibility that some people may abuse the privlige and die from too much drink. We, as a society, determine that our kids having friends is worth the risk that one of them might turn out bad, even to the point where it might cost us some neshomos down the line.
Now, it should be pointed out that my argument has nothing to do with whether teens should be allowed to have cell phones or not. There are valid arguments for both sides. But the "if only one..." fallacy is not a valid argument -- and it turns up all too often in public policy decisions.
The Wolf
One of the latest examples comes from this Yeshiva World News article concerning teens and cell phones. One commenter said (bolding mine):
r’ webber is absolutely right as is the hanhala of bais shaindel but i ask all readers and comment posters if even one neshoma is lost due to texting or internet isn’t that reason enough for the small sacrafice of voice only phones for all of us and anyone saying that they know better is to blame for all future destruction caused by this epidemic
The fallacy of this argument is that it could be applied to almost anything. For example, perhaps we should outlaw the use of cars (except emergency vehicles). After all, if even one life can be saved, shouldn't that be reason enough?
The fact of the matter is that every activity that we engage in has a specific amount of risk. Every time a person gets into a car (or walks down the street, or plays baseball, or eats, etc.) there is a small possibility that the activity will cost them their life, God forbid. Yet we, as a society, determine that we're going to accept a certain number of fatalities for engaging in this activity. About 42,000 people die per year in car accidents. Shouldn't we invoke the doctrine of v'nishmartem m'od l'nafshoseichem and ban car driving (again, except for emergency vehicles)?
I don't know the number of people who die from alcohol poisoning on Purim, but shouldn't we ban it even if only one person could be saved?
Heck, perhaps we should prevent our kids from coming into contact with any other kids. After all, if even we can save one neshoma from coming into contact with a bad influence and going off the derech, shouldn't we accept that small sacrifice?
Of course, the above questions are ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that we, as a society, have determined that having the benefits of automobiles available to all of us is worth the 42,000 lives that it costs each year. We, as a society, have determined that the value of being able to drink on Purim is worth the possibility that some people may abuse the privlige and die from too much drink. We, as a society, determine that our kids having friends is worth the risk that one of them might turn out bad, even to the point where it might cost us some neshomos down the line.
Now, it should be pointed out that my argument has nothing to do with whether teens should be allowed to have cell phones or not. There are valid arguments for both sides. But the "if only one..." fallacy is not a valid argument -- and it turns up all too often in public policy decisions.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)