A Public Service Announcement to the folks I davened with on Sunday:
To the fellow davening next to me:
It's bad enough that the shliach tzibur (prayer leader) for Shacharis is reciting the Chazaras HaShatz (the repitition of the amidah) so low that I can barely hear him. Please don't compound the problem by saying your "catch up" davening loudly next to me. I believe that, even though you are a member in the shul and I am only a guest, my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to say Az Yashir in a loud voice. An even better idea would be to come on time next time so that you can say Az Yashir when the rest of the congregation is doing so. And you didn't make matters any better when you recited portions of your (silent) Amidah out loud.
To the parade of people marching to and from the sukkah at the start of Hallel:
Yes, it's a nice minhag (custom) to bentch lulav and esrog in the sukkah. I get it, I really do. But if doing so is going to result in your missing half of Hallel, then you're better off just bentching lulav by your seat. I highly doubt it's worth missing half of Hallel (I saw some of you coming back inside as we were up to "Ana HaShem..." just so that you can bentch lulav in the sukkah. If the minhag means that much to you, then next time bentch lulav at home in your sukkah before coming to shul, or else come early and do it in the shul's sukkah before davening, or else just do it at your seat right before Hallel.
To the conversationalists:
I understand... it's a Sunday, it's Chol HaMoed, there's no work for most of you and you have plans for a great day with your families. I get it, I really do. But there's no reason to be discussing them (or any of the other minutiae) that is discussed during davening. I was barely able to hear the Chazarras HaShatz for Mussaf because of all the talking in the shul. Yes, I suppose I am partially to blame because I sit all the way in the back -- I suppose if I moved closer I might be able to hear better -- but I really shouldn't have to. It's not as if the Shliach Tzibur for Mussaf was all that low -- he wasn't. Absent the talking, I could have heard him perfectly where I was. Once again, I'm willing to bet that even though I am only a guest and you are members, that my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to discuss your plans for the day. Perhaps, in the future, you might consider the following:
I am normally strongly opposed to the practice that some people have of removing their tallis and tefillin before the very end of davening. Yet, I understand that sometimes people are in a rush because they have to get to work or because they have important plans that are time-sensitive. So I'm dan l'kaf z'chus (I give the benefit of the doubt). But I would much rather see you leave early and hold your discussions outside while the davening is still going on rather than have you discuss them in shul. It's REALLY hard for me to be dan l'kaf z'chus when I hear you discussing things that are (a) not related to the davening and (b) don't HAVE to be discussed right then and there and (c) are discussed loudly enough that I can hear you a few rows away and can no longer hear the shliach tzibbur. So, next time, how about leaving instead of talking? Both are wrong, but at least if you leave, I have grounds on which to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The Wolf
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Frum People Don't Kiss or Hug Their Spouses...
... or at least that's what one couple wants their nearly teenage daughter to believe.
A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed. In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch. The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging. Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim." As the poster puts it:
The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them. And so she told her daughter. Her daughter's reaction:
So far, so good. Kid sees something that was meant to be private. Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing). Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.
But the story doesn't end there. When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different. In her words:
And sure enough, he does just this. In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:
and
The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong. These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc. Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.
So, what's the end result here?
1. Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:
a. She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy. Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.
b. She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.
2. The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts. Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple. But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.
3. By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility. By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution. IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage.
I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids. If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business. It's not how Eeees and I run ours. Our kids see us hug and kiss. They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not. Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship.
I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered. It's a perfectly natural parental reaction. Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child. Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever. At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.
We had this issue with one of our children. Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked. No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context. We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do. The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.
Children are naturally curious about the world. They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about. But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world. That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them. As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.
Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this: if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship. Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers. Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix
A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed. In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch. The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging. Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim." As the poster puts it:
Obviously I'll never know just how much she saw but she was in total shock that this couple were "behaving like chilonim" and she was nauseous over the whole thing. Needless to say, my dd is very sheltered and could not imagine that anyone Charedi would do something so disgusting!
The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them. And so she told her daughter. Her daughter's reaction:
She was not happy with that answer and of course, started to ask me about her father and myself. I didn't give her a straight answer but I did let her know that it's normal and natural.
So far, so good. Kid sees something that was meant to be private. Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing). Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.
But the story doesn't end there. When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different. In her words:
When DH found this out he was not a happy camper. He would rather have her think that the neighbors are pervs or something. Oy.
And sure enough, he does just this. In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:
She ran to tell my dh about it this morning before I woke up. He told her that it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder and that the only reason I said that it is done is because I didn't want to say bad things about the neighbors and that I didn't know what to say. She asked me if that's true and I said yes.
and
My husband says that the mere fact that she got such a shock from what she saw is enough of a reason to make sure she gets back on track and the only way to get her back to her equilibrium is to let her think that it's wrong. He says it's allowed by halacha to lie about this. I said that she'll eventually know I'm a liar and he said that the important thing here is not if I'm a liar or not - it's her state of mind.
The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong. These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc. Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.
So, what's the end result here?
1. Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:
a. She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy. Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.
b. She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.
2. The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts. Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple. But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.
3. By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility. By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution. IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage.
I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids. If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business. It's not how Eeees and I run ours. Our kids see us hug and kiss. They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not. Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship.
I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered. It's a perfectly natural parental reaction. Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child. Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever. At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.
We had this issue with one of our children. Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked. No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context. We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do. The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.
Children are naturally curious about the world. They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about. But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world. That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them. As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.
Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this: if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship. Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers. Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Shana Tova
I want to wish all my readers, my correspondents and everyone else a Shana Tova. May you all be blessed with health and happiness. May all your wishes for the coming year be fulfilled.
The Wolf
The Wolf
Friday, August 27, 2010
Do People Actually Hear Themselves When They Speak...?
... or write, in this case.
The proposed Park51 community center/mosque/whatever you want to call it has been in the news for the last few weeks. Personally, I'm of two minds about it and can hear both sides' argument. As a result, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter one way or the other.
Other people, of course, have strong opinions about the building -- and they're certainly entitled to them. But sometimes people make some really silly statements and I wonder if they actually give much thought to their statements and whether what they're saying might be just as equally applicable to themselves or their community.
Let's take a look at a few examples, courtesy of the YWN Coffeeroom.
The first response in the thread is a good example in fear-mongering.
Now, I'm going to switch just one word in the quote -- tell me how is sounds to you.
"What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one synagogue, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!"
Not too nice sounding, is it? But I bet you could have heard some people saying the same thing in communities where Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox) Jews moved in. I would not be surprised to find out that such sentiments were uttered by long-time residents in places such as Lakewood, Williamsburg, Boro Park, Postville, Monroe and Flatbush in the past who saw the character of their neighborhoods changing. And if someone uttered it today, we'd (rightfully) denounce the person as a bigoted, ignorant and antisemitic. But yet, the very same people who would scream and holler about it being said about them have no compunctions about using such language against others.
A similar sentiment is expressed further down the thread by a poster named Baruch-1:
And, again, here's the "revised" quote:
"It's bad enough to have a growing Jewish population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a synagogue on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Judaism from growing here."
Again, sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it? We'd scream and protest (again, rightfully) if someone said that today, but to say it about Muslims and suddenly everything's okay?
Next, we turn to the hypocrasy that some of the posters, knowingly or unknowingly, exhibit.
Here's one from a poster with whom I usually agree and is usually pretty level headed:
I would suggest that before she suggests stripping Muslims of their freedom of religion on the basis that they don't allow it that she actually look into just how much freedom of religion is allowed to non-Jews under halacha. Granted, they don't have to be Jews, but their choices are actually quite limited and Judaism clearly does not have the concept of "freedom of religion."
Baruch-1 (who provided a quote above) also gave us an example of this as well.
Is Baruch not aware that halacha is also very controlling and, at times, intolerant? Does he not understand that, under halacha, one could find situations where non-Jews are subservient to Jews? Is he really so blind as to not see it? And yet he basis his opposition to Muslims on this. As the saying goes, "doctor, heal thyself."
I have no beef with people who have strongly held opinions on whether this building should be built. As I said, I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have valid points. But when people resort to pure hatred and hypocrisy to make their points, then I consider it out of bounds and in very bad taste.
The Wolf
The proposed Park51 community center/mosque/whatever you want to call it has been in the news for the last few weeks. Personally, I'm of two minds about it and can hear both sides' argument. As a result, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter one way or the other.
Other people, of course, have strong opinions about the building -- and they're certainly entitled to them. But sometimes people make some really silly statements and I wonder if they actually give much thought to their statements and whether what they're saying might be just as equally applicable to themselves or their community.
Let's take a look at a few examples, courtesy of the YWN Coffeeroom.
The first response in the thread is a good example in fear-mongering.
What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one mosque, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!
Now, I'm going to switch just one word in the quote -- tell me how is sounds to you.
"What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one synagogue, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!"
Not too nice sounding, is it? But I bet you could have heard some people saying the same thing in communities where Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox) Jews moved in. I would not be surprised to find out that such sentiments were uttered by long-time residents in places such as Lakewood, Williamsburg, Boro Park, Postville, Monroe and Flatbush in the past who saw the character of their neighborhoods changing. And if someone uttered it today, we'd (rightfully) denounce the person as a bigoted, ignorant and antisemitic. But yet, the very same people who would scream and holler about it being said about them have no compunctions about using such language against others.
A similar sentiment is expressed further down the thread by a poster named Baruch-1:
It's bad enough to have a growing Muslim population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a mosque on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Islam from growing here.
And, again, here's the "revised" quote:
"It's bad enough to have a growing Jewish population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a synagogue on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Judaism from growing here."
Again, sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it? We'd scream and protest (again, rightfully) if someone said that today, but to say it about Muslims and suddenly everything's okay?
Next, we turn to the hypocrasy that some of the posters, knowingly or unknowingly, exhibit.
Here's one from a poster with whom I usually agree and is usually pretty level headed:
No, it should not be built. The freedom of religion does not apply to a religion that BANS ALL freedom of religion.
I would suggest that before she suggests stripping Muslims of their freedom of religion on the basis that they don't allow it that she actually look into just how much freedom of religion is allowed to non-Jews under halacha. Granted, they don't have to be Jews, but their choices are actually quite limited and Judaism clearly does not have the concept of "freedom of religion."
Baruch-1 (who provided a quote above) also gave us an example of this as well.
Islam is by its nature (according to the 'pashut' reading of the Quran) a controlling and an intolerant religion! There I said it! Forget about contemporary Talibans and Wahabis, since its very creation, Islam has subscribed to the belief that Christians and Jews are Dhimmis thus making them subserviant to Muslims under Shariyah law.
Is Baruch not aware that halacha is also very controlling and, at times, intolerant? Does he not understand that, under halacha, one could find situations where non-Jews are subservient to Jews? Is he really so blind as to not see it? And yet he basis his opposition to Muslims on this. As the saying goes, "doctor, heal thyself."
I have no beef with people who have strongly held opinions on whether this building should be built. As I said, I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have valid points. But when people resort to pure hatred and hypocrisy to make their points, then I consider it out of bounds and in very bad taste.
The Wolf
Photos: Daisy In Drop
I can't say this is one of my best shots ever, but it's the beginning of an experiment in macro photography.
As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and appreciated.
The Wolf
To see all my photo pictures, click here.
Canon XSi, MPE-65mm macro, f/16m, 15 seconds.
The Wolf
To see all my photo pictures, click here.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Don't You Find It Amusing....
... when people who say "let's flood the public schools" with our kids as a solution to the community tuition problems are probably the same ones who want their yeshivos ultra-segregated so that only the "right" kids can attend?
What do they think the public school system will do? Set up "yeshivish-only" classes?
The Wolf
What do they think the public school system will do? Set up "yeshivish-only" classes?
The Wolf
Molestation... and the Lakewood Response To It.
The Asbury Park Press is reporting about a recent case of a Lakewood father who decided to notify the authorities when his son accused a yeshiva teacher of sexually abusing him for about a year. The teacher has since been arrested, pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
But there is another story here, aside from the child and the molester. As it turns out, the father now facing opposition in the community for having chosen to go to the police rather than have the matter handled internally by a local Bais Din. Attempts were made to get the father to drop the charges. Notices were distributed as a recent charity event decrying the "shameful thing" that was done -- not the abuse, of course, but the fact that the victim's father went to the police. One Lakewood resident has been charged with witness tampering in the case.
Personally, I believe that most people, if they felt confidence in the system provided, will use it. People will go to Bais Din for civil cases when, and only when, they feel confident that justice will be served. If people feel that an institution is corrupt or unable to solve their problems, they will find another system that can do so. If this is true for civil cases, how much more so will it apply to criminal cases when people may fear for the safety of their families or others?
I think it's evidently clear that, in the case, the father of the victim did not feel that Bais Din was capable of handling the matter -- and, in truth, I can't say that I blame him for having such feelings. Given their inexperience with such matters, the past track record of rabbinical organizations in sweeping such allegations under the rug and and lack of any true enforcement and prevention mechanism, there probably isn't a great deal that any communal rabbinical organization can do alone to stop molesters. That's not to say that at some point in the future they may not come up with a valid, reliable method for handling such cases in the future, but, for the present, there is no evidence of any credible method for dealing with criminals in our midst. And with no assurance that the rabbinic authorities can prevent this person from harming his son or anyone else, he turned to the ones he felt were best able to ensure that this does not happen again.
But aside from all that, there is another dimension to this case -- that of the implied social contract between ourselves and our neighbors.
Rabbi Shmuel Meir Katz, a senior Dayan in Lakewood, was quoted as saying the following:
What Rabbi Katz doesn't seem to realize is that we don't live in isolation. In Lakewood, as in most places in the world, we live side-by-side with non-Jewish neighbors. And since we live side-by-side with them, actions taken by either group tend to affect the other. If there were a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a simple cat burglar in our neighbor's midst and they struck, we'd want to make sure that they are brought to justice. Even if we don't care about our neighbors, we'd want to at least be sure that the criminal will not strike us. But how would Rabbi Katz feel if the molester's community defended him saying "we have our own laws, we will take care of it internally?" Would he feel confident that the matter is resolved? Would he feel safe that his community is secure because his neighbors have decided to handle it amongst themselves with no outward accountability? Or would he demand that the police get involved to remove the molester from the Lakewood area so that children will once again be safe? My guess would be that most people would not be satisfied with such an arrangemnet.
But that being the case, how can Rabbi Katz expect that his non-Jewish neighbors will be satisfied with such an arrangement? How can he, in good conscience, tell reporters "we have our own laws" when he would not accept such an argument from any other group? And, with the knowledge now public that we won't turn over criminals to law enforcement, how can he ever in the future, in good conscience, complain when another group refuses to hand over someone who harms a Jew?
The Wolf
Hat Tip: VIN
But there is another story here, aside from the child and the molester. As it turns out, the father now facing opposition in the community for having chosen to go to the police rather than have the matter handled internally by a local Bais Din. Attempts were made to get the father to drop the charges. Notices were distributed as a recent charity event decrying the "shameful thing" that was done -- not the abuse, of course, but the fact that the victim's father went to the police. One Lakewood resident has been charged with witness tampering in the case.
Personally, I believe that most people, if they felt confidence in the system provided, will use it. People will go to Bais Din for civil cases when, and only when, they feel confident that justice will be served. If people feel that an institution is corrupt or unable to solve their problems, they will find another system that can do so. If this is true for civil cases, how much more so will it apply to criminal cases when people may fear for the safety of their families or others?
I think it's evidently clear that, in the case, the father of the victim did not feel that Bais Din was capable of handling the matter -- and, in truth, I can't say that I blame him for having such feelings. Given their inexperience with such matters, the past track record of rabbinical organizations in sweeping such allegations under the rug and and lack of any true enforcement and prevention mechanism, there probably isn't a great deal that any communal rabbinical organization can do alone to stop molesters. That's not to say that at some point in the future they may not come up with a valid, reliable method for handling such cases in the future, but, for the present, there is no evidence of any credible method for dealing with criminals in our midst. And with no assurance that the rabbinic authorities can prevent this person from harming his son or anyone else, he turned to the ones he felt were best able to ensure that this does not happen again.
But aside from all that, there is another dimension to this case -- that of the implied social contract between ourselves and our neighbors.
Rabbi Shmuel Meir Katz, a senior Dayan in Lakewood, was quoted as saying the following:
"We have our own system. We have our own laws, and as long as the Bais Din (rabbinical tribunal) feels competent on taking care of something themselves, that's our surest recourse in our circles.''
What Rabbi Katz doesn't seem to realize is that we don't live in isolation. In Lakewood, as in most places in the world, we live side-by-side with non-Jewish neighbors. And since we live side-by-side with them, actions taken by either group tend to affect the other. If there were a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a simple cat burglar in our neighbor's midst and they struck, we'd want to make sure that they are brought to justice. Even if we don't care about our neighbors, we'd want to at least be sure that the criminal will not strike us. But how would Rabbi Katz feel if the molester's community defended him saying "we have our own laws, we will take care of it internally?" Would he feel confident that the matter is resolved? Would he feel safe that his community is secure because his neighbors have decided to handle it amongst themselves with no outward accountability? Or would he demand that the police get involved to remove the molester from the Lakewood area so that children will once again be safe? My guess would be that most people would not be satisfied with such an arrangemnet.
But that being the case, how can Rabbi Katz expect that his non-Jewish neighbors will be satisfied with such an arrangement? How can he, in good conscience, tell reporters "we have our own laws" when he would not accept such an argument from any other group? And, with the knowledge now public that we won't turn over criminals to law enforcement, how can he ever in the future, in good conscience, complain when another group refuses to hand over someone who harms a Jew?
The Wolf
Hat Tip: VIN
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Rabbinic Approval of Community Events
The Jewish Community Council of Marine Park is sponsoring an emergency blood drive tonight at K'hal Bnei Torah ("Rabbi Schiffenbauer's shul" -- 3514 Flatlands Avenue -- Google map link) from 6:30 to 11:00 PM tonight. I urge all those who are eligible to give blood to do so. I plan to be there myself later on in the evening and drop off a pint of Wolfish blood. Donating blood is a mitzvah and saves lives. On top of that, they'll even serve you dinner too.
I found out about this event through a flier that was distributed in various shuls in the neighborhood. At the bottom of the flyer were printed the following words:
This Blood Drive has the complete support & endorsement of the Vaad Horabbonim of Marine Park.
This is not the first time I've seen this sort of disclaimer for an event. In fact, I've been seeing them more and more often over the last few years on all sorts of events from children's carnivals to gatherings to discuss serious communal issues.
I'm not going so far as to say that there are no events that shouldn't have rabbinical oversight or endorsement, but one wonders why you would need rabbinical endorsement for something as simple as a blood drive. Even if you thought there might be a halachic issue with giving blood (I'm certainly not aware of any issues that have a valid logical basis), that's why we have rabbis to ask questions of, correct? If I saw a flier for a blood drive and I thought it might be a problem, I would simply call up my local orthodox rabbi and say "Rabbi, there's a blood drive tonight and I'd like to donate but I'm not sure if it's allowed because of reasons X, Y and Z..." You should not require a rabbinic committee to approve an event or organization that is a mitzvah and providing a benefit to the community. An ad to raise funds for a charity such as Tomche Shabbos shouldn't need to say something along the lines of "approved by the Vaad Harabbonim of...." That's not to say that organizations shouldn't have a rabbinic adviser to whom they can turn when they have a question -- organizations should have just such an adviser. But this obsession with getting rabbinic approbation for any event is just another sign of the fact that common people are abdicating their responsibility to use common sense and good judgment.
One wonders where this is all going in the future. Will my kids be sending out invitations to their sons' bar mitzvahs with the line "Approved by the Vaad harabbonim..." on it? Or will my future five-year old grandchildren receive an invitation to a friend's birthday party that reads "Come to Chavie's Birthday Party! Approved by the Vaad Harabonnim!?"
The Wolf
Monday, August 23, 2010
Does Anyone Have Any Data On Orthodox Jewish Marriage Patterns?
I'm attempting to do some research into the "Age-Gap" theory of the "Shidduch crisis." I've written a program to simulate a community, but right now, my virtual community acts based on my guesses of when people marry and the age of their spouses. I would like to improve my model based on real-world data (if there is any out there) and see if I can get my virtual community to behave more like the real community.
So, does anyone know of any studies that were done on Orthodox Jewish marriages in recent years? Specifically with data as to the ages of marriage of the partners?
Thanks in advance,
The Wolf
So, does anyone know of any studies that were done on Orthodox Jewish marriages in recent years? Specifically with data as to the ages of marriage of the partners?
Thanks in advance,
The Wolf
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Crisis In Faith
Ignorance, the saying goes, is bliss - and that much is true. But sometimes bliss isn't enough to go on. Sometimes you need to confront the reality, however unpleasant it may be.
A commentator recently asked me if I was going through a crisis of faith. My first thought upon seeing the question was to dismiss it out of hand. But having taken some time to reflect on the matter, I can't help but wonder if perhaps he is right. Perhaps I am going through a crisis of faith. If faith is a byproduct of ignorance, then I am certainly going through a crisis of faith.
We have all seen examples of Jews who failed, in a very public way, to live up to the Torah's standards of ethical behavior. We've seen examples of rabbis who steal. We've seen examples of rabbis who molest children and commit other sexual indiscretions. We've seen examples of rabbis who are corrupt and either follow the money or power when it comes to communal policy. We've seen rabbis make outrageous statements that defy logic and comprehension. We've seen rabbis who are far more concerned with minutiae such as skirt lengths, wigs, music and the like rather than seeing that people can get a Jewish education or making good communal decisions. We've seen rabbis who seem to be far more interested in dividing the Jewish community between their own "correct" enclave and the "Other" portions of Orthodox Judaism -- to say nothing of the vast majority of non-Orthodox Judaism -- than in bringing Jews together. We see rabbis who seem to want to advance their own personal agendas in a "my way or the highway" fashion in the areas of marriage, divorce, conversion, etc. rather than reach out and form a halachic consensus that is workable for everyone.
And we have whole communities that are willing to march in lockstep behind these rabbis, whether they are right or wrong, without giving even for a second considering the possibility that these rabbis just might be wrong. We have whole swaths of our community who have granted leading rabbis a de facto status of infallibility, whose words are not to be questioned or commented on. And we have seen how those very same "infallible" rabbis can be manipulated by people who have personal agendas by using partial truths or outright lies to form communal policy, disrupt the livlihood of people engaged in perfectly legitimate occupations and so on.
People like to say "Don't judge Judaism by the Jews." As with the popular expression that I mentioned earlier, there is a certain amount of truth in the saying. Jews, like the rest of humanity, are only human. Like all other human beings, we have our failings and there will be those of us who engage in misconduct that brings shame on the community. It's unfortunate that it happens, but as long as we're human, it will happen from time to time. And you can even expect that rabbis, too, from time to time, will misbehave as well. They are subject to the same basic human temptations that the hoi polloi are subject to. You would think that rabbis should be held to a higher standard than the common man, but not to a standard of perfection. But yet, we have seen in the last few years, rabbis engaging in bad behavior in incidents that are becoming far more numerous than any that I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps all this went on all the time and I was merely ignorant before -- but now that I know, I cannot "unknow" it. This is not to say that there are not rabbis out there who are saintly human beings, who work tirelessly for the communal good and work on fixing K'lal Yisroel's problems rather than creating new ones. I'm certain that they're out there and I'd even venture that they are the majority -- but just as a single skunk in a patch of a thousand roses can overwhelm the plesant scent of the flowers with his stink, so too one bad rabbi can cause more damage than the good works of many good rabbis. And the stink of the skunks is getting harder and harder to tolerate.
If I could say that this crisis of faith that I'm having is limited in its scope to the behavior of some lay individuals or rabbis, I could perhaps find it much easier to resolve. But it runs far deeper than that -- it also runs into the areas of community policy, attitudes and theology.
Orthodox Judaism has been experiencing a "slide to the right" for a while now. Things that were perfectly acceptable in some circles thirty years ago are now deemed "beyond the pale." As an example, someone recently said the following to me:
Keep in mind that mixed-seated weddings were fairly common in the Orthodox community in the past generation or two. But according to this commentator, all those people are just not ehrlich (i.e. honest, virtuous)-- and neither are a lot of people today, it seems. No matter how honest you are in your dealings, no matter how meticulous your observance of the mitzvos, no matter how careful you are in dealing with the feelings of your fellow man, if you agree to a shidduch where there is mixed seating, you're just not ehrlich.
And the attitude goes far beyond simply mixed seating. It seems like it's almost every month that some new ban arises in the community -- whether it be concerts, fish, the Internet, media in general, books, clothing colors and styles and on and on. As a community, we are imposing ever stricter guidelines on people, both through official channels (i.e. community rabbis, schools, other institutions) and unofficial channels (if you don't conform in even the most minute way, your kids will have difficulty getting a shidduch). And while higher standards can be a good thing, it must be balanced by the ability of the community and it's people to be able to happily live within those standards. Chazal recognized this over a millennium ago with the idea that a decree, no matter how valid, warranted or needed, cannot be enacted if the community cannot (or will not) live under it and abide by it. Today, however, we seem to have remembered the need for communal decrees to address new situations that arise, but we've forgotten the part that any solution must be one that the community will accept and live by. Perhaps the reason for this is because these bans and decrees come from people with an agenda to push and by well-meaning rabbis who are given misleading and false information and are out of touch with the common people.
If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of increasing standards, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even further than that -- it also goes to the attitudes that are prevelant in some parts of our community.
Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes that are present in our community, but perhaps the most important underlying cause is the refusal of our community to move forward. We seem to be stuck in a Middle-Ages mindset -- and based on the rules that some of us have adopted, we will always be in that same mindset.
A while ago, I engaged in a debate about whether or not statements made by and attitudes expressed by rabbanim are influenced by the environments in which they lived, or whether such statements are, in effect, made in a vacuum and therefore unalterable by time or place. I posted about this a while back with regard to a statement by the author of the Torah Temimah about the lack of intelligence in women. Many in our community seem to take the position that because a rav in place X and time Y made a statement that it applies in all places and all times and that there is no possibility that his own personal biases, upbringing, surrounding culture and environment could have had an input into his attitudes and statements. So, if the author of the Torah Temimah says that women lack intellectual stability, then it's true of women in all places and all times. What would such a person say to the fact that it can easily be seen in today's world that women are, in fact, intellectually stable and can achieve in almost any field of intellectual endeavor? Nothing. They simply close their eyes and repeat the mantra of "Toras Emes, Toras Emes." Ignore the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. Perhaps this was best expressed by Rabbi Uren Reich a few years ago when he said:
While his comments address the Gemara specifically, I would not be surprised to find that he would expand that to include anyone in the accepted gedolim throughout the ages. I would find it hard to believe that Rav Reich would take the opinion of a twenty-first century scientist over a statement of Rashi, the Vilna Goan, R. Akiva Eiger or the Chazon Ish.
But such thinking leads to warped communal policy and dysfunctional communities. Rather than looking at the fact that women are obviously capable of advanced academic learning and perhaps we, as a community might benefit from additional people learning Torah from a female perspective, we simply repeat the mantra of "women aren't able to learn Torah" and forbid them from even opening up a Mishnayos, let alone a Gemara (or, in the case of some communities, even a chumash!). Rather than considering the fact that the concept of mesirah is obviously an artifact of another time and place where conditions were much different than in the present-day United States, we actively shelter child molesters, thieves and other criminals in our midst, where they are given more opportunities to commit crimes. And so on. As a result, we have dysfunctional communities that are increasingly out of step with modern social realities and will only continue to cause further tension both externally with those outside of our community and internally as those modern realities seep through the walls that are being erected (and yes, they *will* seep through).
If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of communal policy, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even deeper than that. It goes even to the theological core of what is being presented.
It's very clear from the scientific evidence that the world is far older than 5770 years. It's very clear that the world wasn't created in six literal 24-hour days (although at one point, I presented a possible way to say that the world was created in such a fashion). It's very clear from the available evidence that there was no global flood some 4000 years ago that covered the entire earth and wiped out all animal life excepting eight humans and two to fourteen of every non-fish species. Valid questions can be asked about the Exodus, Mattan Torah and the Conquest of the Land. The idea that the Torah that we have today is a letter-perfect copy of the one that Moshe received on Mount Sinai grows more doubtful in my mind every time I think on the matter. The idea that an entire corpus of oral law was somehow passed down from generation to generation unwritten, unchanged and unaffected/uninfluenced by the biases, agendas and beliefs of the people who engaged in that transmission sounds more and more ludicrous to me every day. Even the seemingly simple concept of Yeridas HaDoros presents major difficulties for me. And for any of these points which, to me, are supported by either physical evidence or simple reason, I can, in essence, be considered a heretic who is to be shunned by the community.
Some people, it seems, seem to be willing to be bliss in their ignorance, ignore the evidence (or worse, claim that it's faked or part of some vast conspiracy to discredit the Torah) or impugn the credentials or intelligence of the people presenting the evidence (i.e., if only the PhD in physics would read the essay penned by the religious high school graduate, he would see that the entire scientific endeavor is a fraud.). But I cannot do that. I tend to believe that someone who has a PhD in physics knows a thing or two about the subject. And that an entire community of physicists working together and in competition with each other know more about the subject than people who lived before the field was seriously studied. I tend to believe people who can produce repeatable observations and experiments over those who assert something as fact but cannot (or will not) produce the evidence to back it up. How can I maintain faith in a system that seeks to present fiction as literal truth and mistaken information as scientifically accurate?
Even if it were only on theological grounds that I had difficulty, I might be able to dismiss those difficulties or push them to the side. But at this point, I'm having difficulties on all the items presented above and others that I've chosen not to mention. I can no longer be ignorant. I can no longer be in a state of bliss. I cannot unring the bell and pretend that I have not heard the sound it produced, nor would I want to. I would far rather know the truth, however ugly, than be blinded by a fantasy.
So, yes, I guess you could say that I'm suffering a crisis of faith.
The Wolf
A commentator recently asked me if I was going through a crisis of faith. My first thought upon seeing the question was to dismiss it out of hand. But having taken some time to reflect on the matter, I can't help but wonder if perhaps he is right. Perhaps I am going through a crisis of faith. If faith is a byproduct of ignorance, then I am certainly going through a crisis of faith.
We have all seen examples of Jews who failed, in a very public way, to live up to the Torah's standards of ethical behavior. We've seen examples of rabbis who steal. We've seen examples of rabbis who molest children and commit other sexual indiscretions. We've seen examples of rabbis who are corrupt and either follow the money or power when it comes to communal policy. We've seen rabbis make outrageous statements that defy logic and comprehension. We've seen rabbis who are far more concerned with minutiae such as skirt lengths, wigs, music and the like rather than seeing that people can get a Jewish education or making good communal decisions. We've seen rabbis who seem to be far more interested in dividing the Jewish community between their own "correct" enclave and the "Other" portions of Orthodox Judaism -- to say nothing of the vast majority of non-Orthodox Judaism -- than in bringing Jews together. We see rabbis who seem to want to advance their own personal agendas in a "my way or the highway" fashion in the areas of marriage, divorce, conversion, etc. rather than reach out and form a halachic consensus that is workable for everyone.
And we have whole communities that are willing to march in lockstep behind these rabbis, whether they are right or wrong, without giving even for a second considering the possibility that these rabbis just might be wrong. We have whole swaths of our community who have granted leading rabbis a de facto status of infallibility, whose words are not to be questioned or commented on. And we have seen how those very same "infallible" rabbis can be manipulated by people who have personal agendas by using partial truths or outright lies to form communal policy, disrupt the livlihood of people engaged in perfectly legitimate occupations and so on.
People like to say "Don't judge Judaism by the Jews." As with the popular expression that I mentioned earlier, there is a certain amount of truth in the saying. Jews, like the rest of humanity, are only human. Like all other human beings, we have our failings and there will be those of us who engage in misconduct that brings shame on the community. It's unfortunate that it happens, but as long as we're human, it will happen from time to time. And you can even expect that rabbis, too, from time to time, will misbehave as well. They are subject to the same basic human temptations that the hoi polloi are subject to. You would think that rabbis should be held to a higher standard than the common man, but not to a standard of perfection. But yet, we have seen in the last few years, rabbis engaging in bad behavior in incidents that are becoming far more numerous than any that I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps all this went on all the time and I was merely ignorant before -- but now that I know, I cannot "unknow" it. This is not to say that there are not rabbis out there who are saintly human beings, who work tirelessly for the communal good and work on fixing K'lal Yisroel's problems rather than creating new ones. I'm certain that they're out there and I'd even venture that they are the majority -- but just as a single skunk in a patch of a thousand roses can overwhelm the plesant scent of the flowers with his stink, so too one bad rabbi can cause more damage than the good works of many good rabbis. And the stink of the skunks is getting harder and harder to tolerate.
If I could say that this crisis of faith that I'm having is limited in its scope to the behavior of some lay individuals or rabbis, I could perhaps find it much easier to resolve. But it runs far deeper than that -- it also runs into the areas of community policy, attitudes and theology.
Orthodox Judaism has been experiencing a "slide to the right" for a while now. Things that were perfectly acceptable in some circles thirty years ago are now deemed "beyond the pale." As an example, someone recently said the following to me:
An ehrlich yid would not agree to a shidduch where seperate [sic] seating was not a given.
Keep in mind that mixed-seated weddings were fairly common in the Orthodox community in the past generation or two. But according to this commentator, all those people are just not ehrlich (i.e. honest, virtuous)-- and neither are a lot of people today, it seems. No matter how honest you are in your dealings, no matter how meticulous your observance of the mitzvos, no matter how careful you are in dealing with the feelings of your fellow man, if you agree to a shidduch where there is mixed seating, you're just not ehrlich.
And the attitude goes far beyond simply mixed seating. It seems like it's almost every month that some new ban arises in the community -- whether it be concerts, fish, the Internet, media in general, books, clothing colors and styles and on and on. As a community, we are imposing ever stricter guidelines on people, both through official channels (i.e. community rabbis, schools, other institutions) and unofficial channels (if you don't conform in even the most minute way, your kids will have difficulty getting a shidduch). And while higher standards can be a good thing, it must be balanced by the ability of the community and it's people to be able to happily live within those standards. Chazal recognized this over a millennium ago with the idea that a decree, no matter how valid, warranted or needed, cannot be enacted if the community cannot (or will not) live under it and abide by it. Today, however, we seem to have remembered the need for communal decrees to address new situations that arise, but we've forgotten the part that any solution must be one that the community will accept and live by. Perhaps the reason for this is because these bans and decrees come from people with an agenda to push and by well-meaning rabbis who are given misleading and false information and are out of touch with the common people.
If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of increasing standards, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even further than that -- it also goes to the attitudes that are prevelant in some parts of our community.
Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes that are present in our community, but perhaps the most important underlying cause is the refusal of our community to move forward. We seem to be stuck in a Middle-Ages mindset -- and based on the rules that some of us have adopted, we will always be in that same mindset.
A while ago, I engaged in a debate about whether or not statements made by and attitudes expressed by rabbanim are influenced by the environments in which they lived, or whether such statements are, in effect, made in a vacuum and therefore unalterable by time or place. I posted about this a while back with regard to a statement by the author of the Torah Temimah about the lack of intelligence in women. Many in our community seem to take the position that because a rav in place X and time Y made a statement that it applies in all places and all times and that there is no possibility that his own personal biases, upbringing, surrounding culture and environment could have had an input into his attitudes and statements. So, if the author of the Torah Temimah says that women lack intellectual stability, then it's true of women in all places and all times. What would such a person say to the fact that it can easily be seen in today's world that women are, in fact, intellectually stable and can achieve in almost any field of intellectual endeavor? Nothing. They simply close their eyes and repeat the mantra of "Toras Emes, Toras Emes." Ignore the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. Perhaps this was best expressed by Rabbi Uren Reich a few years ago when he said:
If the Gemara tells us a metziyus, it’s emes veyatziv. There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara.
While his comments address the Gemara specifically, I would not be surprised to find that he would expand that to include anyone in the accepted gedolim throughout the ages. I would find it hard to believe that Rav Reich would take the opinion of a twenty-first century scientist over a statement of Rashi, the Vilna Goan, R. Akiva Eiger or the Chazon Ish.
But such thinking leads to warped communal policy and dysfunctional communities. Rather than looking at the fact that women are obviously capable of advanced academic learning and perhaps we, as a community might benefit from additional people learning Torah from a female perspective, we simply repeat the mantra of "women aren't able to learn Torah" and forbid them from even opening up a Mishnayos, let alone a Gemara (or, in the case of some communities, even a chumash!). Rather than considering the fact that the concept of mesirah is obviously an artifact of another time and place where conditions were much different than in the present-day United States, we actively shelter child molesters, thieves and other criminals in our midst, where they are given more opportunities to commit crimes. And so on. As a result, we have dysfunctional communities that are increasingly out of step with modern social realities and will only continue to cause further tension both externally with those outside of our community and internally as those modern realities seep through the walls that are being erected (and yes, they *will* seep through).
If I could say my crisis of faith goes even to the area of communal policy, perhaps I might still be able to ride it out. But it goes even deeper than that. It goes even to the theological core of what is being presented.
It's very clear from the scientific evidence that the world is far older than 5770 years. It's very clear that the world wasn't created in six literal 24-hour days (although at one point, I presented a possible way to say that the world was created in such a fashion). It's very clear from the available evidence that there was no global flood some 4000 years ago that covered the entire earth and wiped out all animal life excepting eight humans and two to fourteen of every non-fish species. Valid questions can be asked about the Exodus, Mattan Torah and the Conquest of the Land. The idea that the Torah that we have today is a letter-perfect copy of the one that Moshe received on Mount Sinai grows more doubtful in my mind every time I think on the matter. The idea that an entire corpus of oral law was somehow passed down from generation to generation unwritten, unchanged and unaffected/uninfluenced by the biases, agendas and beliefs of the people who engaged in that transmission sounds more and more ludicrous to me every day. Even the seemingly simple concept of Yeridas HaDoros presents major difficulties for me. And for any of these points which, to me, are supported by either physical evidence or simple reason, I can, in essence, be considered a heretic who is to be shunned by the community.
Some people, it seems, seem to be willing to be bliss in their ignorance, ignore the evidence (or worse, claim that it's faked or part of some vast conspiracy to discredit the Torah) or impugn the credentials or intelligence of the people presenting the evidence (i.e., if only the PhD in physics would read the essay penned by the religious high school graduate, he would see that the entire scientific endeavor is a fraud.). But I cannot do that. I tend to believe that someone who has a PhD in physics knows a thing or two about the subject. And that an entire community of physicists working together and in competition with each other know more about the subject than people who lived before the field was seriously studied. I tend to believe people who can produce repeatable observations and experiments over those who assert something as fact but cannot (or will not) produce the evidence to back it up. How can I maintain faith in a system that seeks to present fiction as literal truth and mistaken information as scientifically accurate?
Even if it were only on theological grounds that I had difficulty, I might be able to dismiss those difficulties or push them to the side. But at this point, I'm having difficulties on all the items presented above and others that I've chosen not to mention. I can no longer be ignorant. I can no longer be in a state of bliss. I cannot unring the bell and pretend that I have not heard the sound it produced, nor would I want to. I would far rather know the truth, however ugly, than be blinded by a fantasy.
So, yes, I guess you could say that I'm suffering a crisis of faith.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)