The school year is finally over for the kids. The last tests have been taken, the books have been turned in and the awards (where applicable) have been given out.
Walter's first year of high school was a mixed bag. He had some trouble adjusting and I think he went through a bit of culture shock. He was used to an enviornment where, because of his intelligence, he could slide by without much effort. Now, however, he found himself in a school where the environment is more challenging. I can't say that Eeees and I are 100% happy with the way the school year went, but we're also pretty sure that this school was probably the best available choice for him and we think that things will be better for him there next year.
People often ask me if we're happy with the choice of school, and, for the most part, we are. Yes, there are certain things that we wish would change about the school (and about Walter himself), but we know that we can't have *everything* we want. Yet, when people ask us about George, they're surprised to find out that we are leaning against sending him there, despite being generally happy with it for Walter. When the time comes to choose a high school for George, we will certainly consider Walter's school. However, early indications are that he probably won't be going there.
The simple fact is that Walter and George are two very different kids with *very* different personalities and temperaments (in fact, sometimes so different that I find it hard to believe that they grew up in the same household). Just because Walter can survive and (we hope, thrive) in a particular environment, that doesn't mean that it is the right one for George. He needs a place that is right for his needs. What's good for Walter is not necessarily what's good for George.
It always amazes me, however, how some people completely ignore the child in the process of picking a school. People sometimes pick a school out of laziness (e.g. "Well, we have one kid here, so let's send all of them here"), competition ("we've got to be able to say that we send our kids to the *best* yeshiva") or even sillier reasons. I know of one parent who didn't want to consider a school because she thought it would reflect poorly on her family when it came time for shidduchim. The educational policies of the place weren't important, whether it was the right fit for her kid's educational level and temperament wasn't important. What was important was that her daughters might not get shidduchim later in life if they or a sibling attended this school. It apparently never entered her mind that sending her kids to the wrong school for them could send them off the derech, which would prove to be a far greater "shidduch stain" than a choice of elementary or high school.*
Parents owe it to their kids to send them to the right school *for them.* It doesn't have to be the right school for the parents -- they aren't the ones attending. It doesn't have to be the right school for the neighbors -- they can send their kids to whatever school they want to. It doesn't have to be the right school for some as-yet-unmet in-laws -- hopefully they'll judge your kid on the basis of his or her character and not what elementary/high school they went to (and, if they judge on that basis, maybe you don't want to marry them anyway). You have to find the school that is the right one for that kid. No one else -- not the parents, not the grandparents, not the neighbors -- not even siblings -- matter. Find the best school for *that* kid. The risk of doing anything else is just too great.
The Wolf
* I'm not suggesting that she actually did send her kid to the wrong school. She just refused to even consider a specific school as a possibly correct choice because of how it would look.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Purpose and Function of Kollel
Bluke posted a recap of an article in the Hebrew Mishpacha magazine about age discrimination in Kollelim. It seems that in Israel (I don't know if this problem exists in the United States or elsewhere) averichim over the age of forty are having difficulty getting into Kollelim. Bluke passes along some of the reasons given in the article. One of the reasons given is as follows:
Someone who is still just sitting and learing in kollel in their 40's is not going to become a Rosh Yeshiva, Rosh Kollel etc. The fact that they haven't moved up shows that they are not so successful.
When reading this, I'm left with a question: what, exactly, is the point of the Kollel system? Is it to produce the next generation of leaders/gedolim, or is it to have as many people as possible learn for as long as possible, for the learning's own sake?
If it's the former, then why do we have whole communities learning in Kollel? It should be restricted to those that show the potential/aptitude to become communal leaders in the future. Everyone else should be told to go get a job, support their families and the Kollel financially, and come back for night seder.
If it's the latter, then what difference does it make if the over-40 married man is still "just learning?" He wants to sit and learn, and we want to encourage everyone who can to sit and learn... so let him join the Kollel.
Does the Kollel system actually have a defined purpose?
The Wolf
Someone who is still just sitting and learing in kollel in their 40's is not going to become a Rosh Yeshiva, Rosh Kollel etc. The fact that they haven't moved up shows that they are not so successful.
When reading this, I'm left with a question: what, exactly, is the point of the Kollel system? Is it to produce the next generation of leaders/gedolim, or is it to have as many people as possible learn for as long as possible, for the learning's own sake?
If it's the former, then why do we have whole communities learning in Kollel? It should be restricted to those that show the potential/aptitude to become communal leaders in the future. Everyone else should be told to go get a job, support their families and the Kollel financially, and come back for night seder.
If it's the latter, then what difference does it make if the over-40 married man is still "just learning?" He wants to sit and learn, and we want to encourage everyone who can to sit and learn... so let him join the Kollel.
Does the Kollel system actually have a defined purpose?
The Wolf
Sunday, June 22, 2008
More of Eeees' Theme Challahs
Aside from having the great fortune of being married to the sweetest, prettiest and most wonderful aishes chayil in the world, I also have the extreme good fortune of being married to a terrific and wonderfully creative challah baker. I've posted in the past about some of Eeees' challah designs. I know it's a bit late, but for Shavuous, Eeees made a wonderful ladder challah.
In addition, over Yom Tov, we celebrated another wedding anniversary... and so Eeees once again made a heart challah for the occasion.
Thank you Eeees for being such a wonderful wife and companion through life, as well as being a terrific baker who makes yummy and creative challos.
The Wolf
In addition, over Yom Tov, we celebrated another wedding anniversary... and so Eeees once again made a heart challah for the occasion.
Thank you Eeees for being such a wonderful wife and companion through life, as well as being a terrific baker who makes yummy and creative challos.
The Wolf
Thursday, June 19, 2008
How About Just Because It's Not An Ehrlich Thing To Do?
A poster in YWN's forum asks about copying media:
If, as is the case in some countries, "file sharing" (such as sites like limewire and Kaza, or torrent sites like mininova and bittorent) is legal, provided that it is not done for profit. If that is the case, can somebody explain to me why their would be an issur in copying (if there is any at all), and what, when i copy a cd, movie, etc. from a disc or someone elses ipod, would i be stealing (even the "perpetual lease" to me doesn't seem like it would make a difference, b/c forsure i am allowed to copy my cd onto my ipod, and when i am taking it from the ipod, i am not taking anything from the cd). thanks anyone for the clarification
The next poster brings up the fact that there is a dispute amongst modern poskim about the halachic legality of copying.
How about this approach:
It's wrong because it's simply not an ehrlich thing to do. You know the producers of the CD you bought would object to your copying. You know that if the situation were reversed, and you put a lot of effort into producing a CD, a DVD, a computer program or a book, you wouldn't want it copied and distributed for free to everyone and their brother. Forget whether it might technically be permitted halachically for a minute and actually ask yourself if this is the right thing to do.
Whenever I find myself in these sorts of situations, I ask myself this: is my self-respect worth the $14.99? Suppose I saw a person drop $14.99 in the street. Put aside the issue of hashavas aveida for a minute and assume no one would see you take the money. Would I swoop in, grab the money and pocket it? Of course not -- I'd return it to the person who dropped it, simply because that is how I would like to be treated if I ever lose a sum of money. I know that if the person were aware that they dropped the money that they'd want it back -- I would too. As such, I couldn't fathom keeping it. My self-respect is worth more than that.
The same thing applies to copying CDs. Put aside whether it's legal. Put aside whether it's halachically permissible. Put aside everything else and just ask yourself "if the situation were reversed, what would you want the other person to do?"
The Wolf
If, as is the case in some countries, "file sharing" (such as sites like limewire and Kaza, or torrent sites like mininova and bittorent) is legal, provided that it is not done for profit. If that is the case, can somebody explain to me why their would be an issur in copying (if there is any at all), and what, when i copy a cd, movie, etc. from a disc or someone elses ipod, would i be stealing (even the "perpetual lease" to me doesn't seem like it would make a difference, b/c forsure i am allowed to copy my cd onto my ipod, and when i am taking it from the ipod, i am not taking anything from the cd). thanks anyone for the clarification
The next poster brings up the fact that there is a dispute amongst modern poskim about the halachic legality of copying.
How about this approach:
It's wrong because it's simply not an ehrlich thing to do. You know the producers of the CD you bought would object to your copying. You know that if the situation were reversed, and you put a lot of effort into producing a CD, a DVD, a computer program or a book, you wouldn't want it copied and distributed for free to everyone and their brother. Forget whether it might technically be permitted halachically for a minute and actually ask yourself if this is the right thing to do.
Whenever I find myself in these sorts of situations, I ask myself this: is my self-respect worth the $14.99? Suppose I saw a person drop $14.99 in the street. Put aside the issue of hashavas aveida for a minute and assume no one would see you take the money. Would I swoop in, grab the money and pocket it? Of course not -- I'd return it to the person who dropped it, simply because that is how I would like to be treated if I ever lose a sum of money. I know that if the person were aware that they dropped the money that they'd want it back -- I would too. As such, I couldn't fathom keeping it. My self-respect is worth more than that.
The same thing applies to copying CDs. Put aside whether it's legal. Put aside whether it's halachically permissible. Put aside everything else and just ask yourself "if the situation were reversed, what would you want the other person to do?"
The Wolf
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Scary Paper On Annulling Conversions
I'm sure that by now, most of you have heard about the revocation of the conversion of "Sarah," the woman who was converted by Rabbi Leib Tropper of Eternal Jewish Family. About a year after her conversion, her husband let slip the fact that Sarah sometimes went out of the house with her head uncovered and/or wearing pants. On these grounds Rabbi Tropper declared that her original intent to convert was not sincere and her conversion was declared null in June 2006. The news of this was followed by the announcement that it's possible that ALL the conversions done by Rabbi Haim Druckman's Beis Din in Israel (as part of the official government conversion authority) over the last nine years may be invalidated.
Being able to invalidate a conversion years after the fact is a scary thing. Perhaps the scariest article I've seen on the subject was written by Dr. Zvi Zohar, a Professor of Sephardic Law and Ethics at Bar-Ilan University. He begins by bringing up a fictitious, yet very possible scenario. A woman (Miriam) converts in an Orthodox ceremony and marries a Jewish man (Reuven). They have a son and a daughter. The son goes to Yeshiva, obtains semicha and becomes a rabbi himself. He serves as a witness for several marriages, sits as a dayan (judge) in several cases (including, possibly divorce and conversion cases), etc. The daughter goes on to marry a Kohen and has several children of her own. Her children duchen, receive the first aliyah in shul, participate in a pidyon haben, etc.
The story then continues:
Miriam, now nearing sixty, has been working secretly for several years on an autobiography – and it is accepted for publication. When published, the public is informed about matters that her husband and close friends have known all along: Miriam opted for giyyur because of Reuven, whom she wanted to marry. She declared acceptence of mitzvot during her giyyur procedure, but was never really convinced that the commandments were ordained by G-d and revealed to Moses, and her observance of halakha, never consistent even at the beginning, soon become spotty, then totally haphazard. She has no problem with the fact that her son Yehuda has adopted a religious lifestyle, and indeed keeps a kosher home for his sake, and when Yehuda and his family come to visit in the U.S., Miriam and Reuven make sure that everything is halakhically meticulous. But when they are alone, they are not religiously observant. Miriam’s good friend Maureen knows someone at the New York Times, and Miriam is interviewed. She tells the reporter how happy she is to be Jewish, and how she really identifies with the Jewish People and the Jewish values of social justice, warm community and family ties, etc. However, she confides, the ritual parts of Judaism – such as Shabbat, kashrut, taharat hamishpaha – never really attracted her, and she doesn’t personally observe them. The interview is picked up by HaAretz, and published in Hebrew in Israel.
What happens then is the scary part. A rabbi reads about this in HaAretz. He calls up the son's Rosh Yeshiva and advises him that the son was never Jewish to begin with, since his mother's conversion was invalid. Everything the son has done in his life (in a halachic sense) is invalid. Any marriages that he witnessed need to be re-performed. If he acted on a court to convert other geirim, then those conversions are invalid too. And if he acted in an official capacity at a divorce... well, let's just hope and pray those women haven't remarried and had kids.
The convert's daughter is also in a very precarious situation. Her life has just turned into a living hell. Since she' s not Jewish, she has to separate from her husband. Furthermore, even if she converts, she cannot "remarry" her husband, since he is a Kohen. Her children are no longer Kohanim (and never were to begin with) and have no "relationship" with their father.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, a ger cannot participate in Jewish society at all. As Dr. Zohar writes:
But is all this possible? Of course -- if one accepts that giyyur can be retroactively annulled. Indeed, if it is possible to retroactively annul even one giyyur based upon subsequent conduct of a ger, then we can NEVER rely upon the Jewishness of ANY person who underwent giyyur, nor upon the Jewishness of any descendent of a female proselyte. The Jewishness of all such persons is eternally contingent, always liable to being undermined by some future revelation. Knowing this, other Jews should always refrain from having gerim or the descendents of female giyyorot serve as witnesses, rabbis, Cohanim … they cannot be counted for a minyan, for a zimmun etc… and of course, no one will ever agree to marry them.
And, the end result will probably be an end to all conversions:
In fact, the most reasonable conclusion for any Orthodox rabbi to draw is that it is better never to accept anybody for giyyur – for who can really know what is in a person’s heart, and how he/she will behave in the future? And of course, once it gets around to persons who have been planning to undergo Orthodox giyyur that they and their children will always be only conditionally Jewish – they will surely revise such ill-considered plans. Who would knowingly place themselves and their families in such a terrible bind?
Scary stuff indeed. The havoc that a single individual can wreak on the klal as a whole is mind boggling. In addition, it's possible that this can be used as an extortion threat by the potential convert themselves. Suppose the convert and her son disagree about an issue -- grandparent's visitation for example. Do we allow a system where the convert can tell her son to accede to her demands or else she'll have him declared a non-Jew by stating that her conversion was never sincere? Do we allow one person to hold a figurative sword over people? It's bad enough that a husband can withhold a get from his wife, but at least there she entered into the marriage willingly. In this case, the parties affected have absolutely no say in the matter -- one person can threaten to destroy the lives of all their descendants with just one word.
Is this really where we are headed? To the point where converts are so completely disenfranchised that they cannot do anything religiously? You can't use them (or their descendants) for a minyan, for a dayan, for a witness at a marriage/divorce, or for anything at all. Heck, you can't even marry them, since it's possible that the conversion will be invalidated even generations later. Is this where the rabbanim who are overseeing this debacle want to take us? If so, then we're really entering a scary world indeed.
The Wolf
UPDATE: Apparently, EJF has it's own version of how "Sarah's" conversion went. The details are here. In any event, the main point of the post wasn't about "Sarah" but about revoking the validity of conversions years after the fact, as is being done in Israel. Since that's still the case and the main point of the post is still valid, I'm going to leave it up.
The Wolf
Being able to invalidate a conversion years after the fact is a scary thing. Perhaps the scariest article I've seen on the subject was written by Dr. Zvi Zohar, a Professor of Sephardic Law and Ethics at Bar-Ilan University. He begins by bringing up a fictitious, yet very possible scenario. A woman (Miriam) converts in an Orthodox ceremony and marries a Jewish man (Reuven). They have a son and a daughter. The son goes to Yeshiva, obtains semicha and becomes a rabbi himself. He serves as a witness for several marriages, sits as a dayan (judge) in several cases (including, possibly divorce and conversion cases), etc. The daughter goes on to marry a Kohen and has several children of her own. Her children duchen, receive the first aliyah in shul, participate in a pidyon haben, etc.
The story then continues:
Miriam, now nearing sixty, has been working secretly for several years on an autobiography – and it is accepted for publication. When published, the public is informed about matters that her husband and close friends have known all along: Miriam opted for giyyur because of Reuven, whom she wanted to marry. She declared acceptence of mitzvot during her giyyur procedure, but was never really convinced that the commandments were ordained by G-d and revealed to Moses, and her observance of halakha, never consistent even at the beginning, soon become spotty, then totally haphazard. She has no problem with the fact that her son Yehuda has adopted a religious lifestyle, and indeed keeps a kosher home for his sake, and when Yehuda and his family come to visit in the U.S., Miriam and Reuven make sure that everything is halakhically meticulous. But when they are alone, they are not religiously observant. Miriam’s good friend Maureen knows someone at the New York Times, and Miriam is interviewed. She tells the reporter how happy she is to be Jewish, and how she really identifies with the Jewish People and the Jewish values of social justice, warm community and family ties, etc. However, she confides, the ritual parts of Judaism – such as Shabbat, kashrut, taharat hamishpaha – never really attracted her, and she doesn’t personally observe them. The interview is picked up by HaAretz, and published in Hebrew in Israel.
What happens then is the scary part. A rabbi reads about this in HaAretz. He calls up the son's Rosh Yeshiva and advises him that the son was never Jewish to begin with, since his mother's conversion was invalid. Everything the son has done in his life (in a halachic sense) is invalid. Any marriages that he witnessed need to be re-performed. If he acted on a court to convert other geirim, then those conversions are invalid too. And if he acted in an official capacity at a divorce... well, let's just hope and pray those women haven't remarried and had kids.
The convert's daughter is also in a very precarious situation. Her life has just turned into a living hell. Since she' s not Jewish, she has to separate from her husband. Furthermore, even if she converts, she cannot "remarry" her husband, since he is a Kohen. Her children are no longer Kohanim (and never were to begin with) and have no "relationship" with their father.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, a ger cannot participate in Jewish society at all. As Dr. Zohar writes:
But is all this possible? Of course -- if one accepts that giyyur can be retroactively annulled. Indeed, if it is possible to retroactively annul even one giyyur based upon subsequent conduct of a ger, then we can NEVER rely upon the Jewishness of ANY person who underwent giyyur, nor upon the Jewishness of any descendent of a female proselyte. The Jewishness of all such persons is eternally contingent, always liable to being undermined by some future revelation. Knowing this, other Jews should always refrain from having gerim or the descendents of female giyyorot serve as witnesses, rabbis, Cohanim … they cannot be counted for a minyan, for a zimmun etc… and of course, no one will ever agree to marry them.
And, the end result will probably be an end to all conversions:
In fact, the most reasonable conclusion for any Orthodox rabbi to draw is that it is better never to accept anybody for giyyur – for who can really know what is in a person’s heart, and how he/she will behave in the future? And of course, once it gets around to persons who have been planning to undergo Orthodox giyyur that they and their children will always be only conditionally Jewish – they will surely revise such ill-considered plans. Who would knowingly place themselves and their families in such a terrible bind?
Scary stuff indeed. The havoc that a single individual can wreak on the klal as a whole is mind boggling. In addition, it's possible that this can be used as an extortion threat by the potential convert themselves. Suppose the convert and her son disagree about an issue -- grandparent's visitation for example. Do we allow a system where the convert can tell her son to accede to her demands or else she'll have him declared a non-Jew by stating that her conversion was never sincere? Do we allow one person to hold a figurative sword over people? It's bad enough that a husband can withhold a get from his wife, but at least there she entered into the marriage willingly. In this case, the parties affected have absolutely no say in the matter -- one person can threaten to destroy the lives of all their descendants with just one word.
Is this really where we are headed? To the point where converts are so completely disenfranchised that they cannot do anything religiously? You can't use them (or their descendants) for a minyan, for a dayan, for a witness at a marriage/divorce, or for anything at all. Heck, you can't even marry them, since it's possible that the conversion will be invalidated even generations later. Is this where the rabbanim who are overseeing this debacle want to take us? If so, then we're really entering a scary world indeed.
The Wolf
UPDATE: Apparently, EJF has it's own version of how "Sarah's" conversion went. The details are here. In any event, the main point of the post wasn't about "Sarah" but about revoking the validity of conversions years after the fact, as is being done in Israel. Since that's still the case and the main point of the post is still valid, I'm going to leave it up.
The Wolf
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Big Event Cancelleation: Lipa Says The Rabbanim Were Lied To
Vos Iz Neias is reporting that in a recent interview, Lipa Schmeltzer maintains that the Rabbanim were lied to regarding what was going to happen at the Big Event Concert.
From the article:
Schmeltzer claims he has come to understand how activists work after speaking with several leading rabbonim. “Many gedolei hatorah have told me that people came to them with false information regarding my concert: they said it would have mixed dancing or mixed seating. But they weren’t satisfied with that—they brought photos of women dancing so as to ‘prove’ that that’s what would happen.”
Considering the fact that the concert was to have separate seating (and certainly no mixed dancing) it seems obvious that, assuming Lipa is telling the truth, it is apparent that the Rabbanim were lied to and that at least some of them did not even so much as speak to Lipa or the organizers of the concert to ascertain the truth before banning the concert and causing a massive financial loss to the organizers and a worth tzedakah organization.
Related Post
The Wolf
From the article:
Schmeltzer claims he has come to understand how activists work after speaking with several leading rabbonim. “Many gedolei hatorah have told me that people came to them with false information regarding my concert: they said it would have mixed dancing or mixed seating. But they weren’t satisfied with that—they brought photos of women dancing so as to ‘prove’ that that’s what would happen.”
Considering the fact that the concert was to have separate seating (and certainly no mixed dancing) it seems obvious that, assuming Lipa is telling the truth, it is apparent that the Rabbanim were lied to and that at least some of them did not even so much as speak to Lipa or the organizers of the concert to ascertain the truth before banning the concert and causing a massive financial loss to the organizers and a worth tzedakah organization.
Related Post
The Wolf
Excuse Me, Are You A Blogger?
I've been giving some thought to the concept of anonymous blogging in the Orthodox Jewish community. We seem to have a number of bloggers who (like myself) hide behind pseudonyms. I've been doing this for three years, and, truth be told, the positions that I purport to hold in real life are exactly the same as the ones I hold on this blog. So why the anonymity? Good question... and I'm not sure I have a valid answer. But that's a discussion for another time.
However, I am (by far) not the only blogger out there who maintains their anonymity. There are lots of people in the Orthodox Jewish community. When I meet someone new (or even hang around people I've known for a long time) I always wonder if secretly they have a blog. I'm almost positive that I've met some of you readers and fellow bloggers in real life and yet, aside from people who have come out and told me who they were (or don't bother to hide their identity in the first place), I have no idea who any of you are. (Well, I have a suspicion that XGH is really a supercomputer in a brain in a jar on a shelf somewhere... but for the rest of you, I have no idea). I could be sitting right next to you in shul on Shabbos, walking with you and your kids to the playground, sitting next to you on the subway, sitting next to you in a shiur... all in complete ignorance.
I'm always curious, however, if people suspect that I'm a blogger. In real life, I'm a fairly quiet guy. I rarely voice opinions. I'm the type of person who works hard at not being noticed. I suppose my blogging is a way to live out a "fantasy" of being well-known... something that I don't necessarily want in real life. I sometimes wonder if I'm really fooling everyone. To my knowledge, very few people have actually figured out who I am. One blogger figured out who I am due to a stupid tech mistake I made about three years ago. Another one figured out who Eeees is. However, if anyone else has figured out who I am, they haven't let me know. No one has tapped me on the shoulder and asked "excuse me, are you a blogger?"
The Wolf
However, I am (by far) not the only blogger out there who maintains their anonymity. There are lots of people in the Orthodox Jewish community. When I meet someone new (or even hang around people I've known for a long time) I always wonder if secretly they have a blog. I'm almost positive that I've met some of you readers and fellow bloggers in real life and yet, aside from people who have come out and told me who they were (or don't bother to hide their identity in the first place), I have no idea who any of you are. (Well, I have a suspicion that XGH is really a supercomputer in a brain in a jar on a shelf somewhere... but for the rest of you, I have no idea). I could be sitting right next to you in shul on Shabbos, walking with you and your kids to the playground, sitting next to you on the subway, sitting next to you in a shiur... all in complete ignorance.
I'm always curious, however, if people suspect that I'm a blogger. In real life, I'm a fairly quiet guy. I rarely voice opinions. I'm the type of person who works hard at not being noticed. I suppose my blogging is a way to live out a "fantasy" of being well-known... something that I don't necessarily want in real life. I sometimes wonder if I'm really fooling everyone. To my knowledge, very few people have actually figured out who I am. One blogger figured out who I am due to a stupid tech mistake I made about three years ago. Another one figured out who Eeees is. However, if anyone else has figured out who I am, they haven't let me know. No one has tapped me on the shoulder and asked "excuse me, are you a blogger?"
The Wolf
Thursday, June 05, 2008
When The Cure Is Far Worse Than The Disease...
Source: Ynet
A fourteen year old girl was attacked in Israel when a man, purported to be from a "va'ad hatznius" poured acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burns. Her crime: wearing loose-fitting pants and a short sleeve shirt.
What's even more interesting is that the group had been threatening the victim's older sister for a while and it's possible that they attacked her thinking she was her older sister.
We can argue whether or not tznius regulations are too strict or should be relaxed. We can argue whether or not sheitels are acceptable, or snoods, or even no hair covering at all. But one thing I think we can all agree upon is that vigilante groups are bad. And people taking it upon themselves to throw acid upon teenagers is worse. And that doing all this in the name of Torah is the ultimate Chillul HaShem.
Ultimately, in any place where you don't have a theocratic authoritarian regime, adherence to religious rules has to come from within. You can't force someone to do the mitzvos in a place where there is freedom of religion. If you want to encourage observance of Torah U'Mitzvos, you have to do it by showing people that keeping the Torah is good. You have to do it through setting a positive example, not by throwing acid on people or beating up women on a bus.
Ultimately, however, whoever did this horrible act has done far more harm than good. If there was any chance of this family might ever become shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos, it has now been shot to hell. If there was ever any chance of showing these people that the Torah is the proper guide to life, it's gone now. And the same thing applies to probably hundreds, if not thousands of people who might have been on the fence and now have been pushed away due to this horrific act.
Congratulations. You saved us from one short sleeve shirt. But you caused a huge Chillul HaShem, an untold amount of Chillul Shabbos, eating of treif, and general non-observance of the mitzvos for hundreds or thousands of people whom you just pushed away from following the Torah -- and their descendants.
Good job fellas.
The Wolf
Hat tip: FailedMessiah
A fourteen year old girl was attacked in Israel when a man, purported to be from a "va'ad hatznius" poured acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burns. Her crime: wearing loose-fitting pants and a short sleeve shirt.
What's even more interesting is that the group had been threatening the victim's older sister for a while and it's possible that they attacked her thinking she was her older sister.
We can argue whether or not tznius regulations are too strict or should be relaxed. We can argue whether or not sheitels are acceptable, or snoods, or even no hair covering at all. But one thing I think we can all agree upon is that vigilante groups are bad. And people taking it upon themselves to throw acid upon teenagers is worse. And that doing all this in the name of Torah is the ultimate Chillul HaShem.
Ultimately, in any place where you don't have a theocratic authoritarian regime, adherence to religious rules has to come from within. You can't force someone to do the mitzvos in a place where there is freedom of religion. If you want to encourage observance of Torah U'Mitzvos, you have to do it by showing people that keeping the Torah is good. You have to do it through setting a positive example, not by throwing acid on people or beating up women on a bus.
Ultimately, however, whoever did this horrible act has done far more harm than good. If there was any chance of this family might ever become shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos, it has now been shot to hell. If there was ever any chance of showing these people that the Torah is the proper guide to life, it's gone now. And the same thing applies to probably hundreds, if not thousands of people who might have been on the fence and now have been pushed away due to this horrific act.
Congratulations. You saved us from one short sleeve shirt. But you caused a huge Chillul HaShem, an untold amount of Chillul Shabbos, eating of treif, and general non-observance of the mitzvos for hundreds or thousands of people whom you just pushed away from following the Torah -- and their descendants.
Good job fellas.
The Wolf
Hat tip: FailedMessiah
The Definition of God
An interesting letter on Chabad.com asks for a logical proof that there is only one God. I don't know if any such proof (I'm not even certain that God's existence is provable, but we'll leave that for another day) truly exists. However, it's not so much the question, but the answer that was given that intrigues me.
An answer to this question is provided on the site by one Aaron Moss. He writes as follows:
The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition." G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d. By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.
The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition."
Now, I'm not sure that I agree with that definition. Indeed, by making that the definition of God "a Being with definition," you *are* defining Him, thus invalidating your own definition. Heck, God Himself defines Himself several times in the Torah as the one who redeemed us from bondage in Egypt.
Putting that aside, there is the problem of the fact that we *do* define God. We do it all the time. He's defined in a number of ways. Some sources define Him as the Creator of the Universe. Others define Him by assigning Attributes to Him. He is defined in classic Jewish literature all the time with positive attributes (mah hu rachum...) and negative attributes (He is noncoporeal, etc.). To say that God is without definition is just incorrect.
In addition, you can't say that the definition of God is something that is undefined. Left to that, the result of division by zero would be God too...
G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d.
By that definition, it's possible to say that the universe (or multiverse, or whatever "top level" object you want to use to define reality) is God, since it, too, is unlimited.
By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.
And yet, many prominent Jewish thinkers disagree with this point. R. Aryeh Kaplan discussed this in one of his essays. I believe he quotes the Rambam (although I could be wrong on this... I'd have to check when I get home) that we don't say that God can do the logically impossible. God cannot create a rock that He cannot lift. He cannot create a triangle with more than three sides or whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. He also brings down that God cannot do the things that the Christians maintain He did: He cannot corpify himself and He cannot die.
It's interesting that the respondent chose to use a geographic metaphor to explain that a boundary is necessary since there are many examples where, despite a lack of a formal boundary, we can still define an area. For example, where does the "West Coast" (of the United States) start? When you say the "West Coast," people don't mean literally just the coast. They usually mean regions of California, Oregon and Washington. But where does it begin and end? Where does the "Midwest" begin and end? What are the borders of "the Bible Belt?" Heck, what are the defined boundaries of Boro Park? And yet, there comes a point where you are undoubtedly on the West Coast, in the Midwest, Bible Belt or Boro Park. Because these areas don't have defined borders, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. In fact, I'd wager that for the majority of human history, most countries didn't have defined borders as we have today.
G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?
How can there be more than one informal region of the United States? How can there be more than one ocean on the world since there is no definite border between the oceans?
In any event, the logical comparison is silly anyway. He's using a human concept (borders, boundaries) to define a supernatural concept. There's no (logical) reason to say that two (or more) gods co-exist together in a way that is beyond the human ken (much as we say that God's lack of origin is beyond our understanding).
Would I love to see a logical (as opposed to a theological) proof to God's unity (or even His existence)? Sure. But this proof doesn't do anything for me.
The Wolf
An answer to this question is provided on the site by one Aaron Moss. He writes as follows:
The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition." G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d. By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.
That's why there can be only one G-d. Because if you don't have a definition, then there is nothing outside of you. There can be no "other".
An example: two neighboring countries can only be called two countries when there is a border in between them. But if a country has no borders, if there is no defined place where it ends and another country begins, how can you say that there are two countries?
G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?
The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him G-d. And that's why there can only be one.
Personally, this "proof" does nothing for me. On the contrary, I find it very lacking. Let's see if we can break it down a bit. He starts out by saying:The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition."
Now, I'm not sure that I agree with that definition. Indeed, by making that the definition of God "a Being with definition," you *are* defining Him, thus invalidating your own definition. Heck, God Himself defines Himself several times in the Torah as the one who redeemed us from bondage in Egypt.
Putting that aside, there is the problem of the fact that we *do* define God. We do it all the time. He's defined in a number of ways. Some sources define Him as the Creator of the Universe. Others define Him by assigning Attributes to Him. He is defined in classic Jewish literature all the time with positive attributes (mah hu rachum...) and negative attributes (He is noncoporeal, etc.). To say that God is without definition is just incorrect.
In addition, you can't say that the definition of God is something that is undefined. Left to that, the result of division by zero would be God too...
G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d.
By that definition, it's possible to say that the universe (or multiverse, or whatever "top level" object you want to use to define reality) is God, since it, too, is unlimited.
By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.
And yet, many prominent Jewish thinkers disagree with this point. R. Aryeh Kaplan discussed this in one of his essays. I believe he quotes the Rambam (although I could be wrong on this... I'd have to check when I get home) that we don't say that God can do the logically impossible. God cannot create a rock that He cannot lift. He cannot create a triangle with more than three sides or whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. He also brings down that God cannot do the things that the Christians maintain He did: He cannot corpify himself and He cannot die.
That's why there can be only one G-d. Because if you don't have a definition, then there is nothing outside of you. There can be no "other".
An example: two neighboring countries can only be called two countries when there is a border in between them. But if a country has no borders, if there is no defined place where it ends and another country begins, how can you say that there are two countries?
Boundaries are not always necessary to define something. In a previous apartment, we had one large room that we used as a dining room and a living room. Although it was one room, there were areas of it that we defined as the "living room" and "dining room." There was no formal boundary. And yet, there were clearly areas (under the dining room table and on the couch, for example) that were clearly "dining room" and "living room" even in the absence of a defined boundary.It's interesting that the respondent chose to use a geographic metaphor to explain that a boundary is necessary since there are many examples where, despite a lack of a formal boundary, we can still define an area. For example, where does the "West Coast" (of the United States) start? When you say the "West Coast," people don't mean literally just the coast. They usually mean regions of California, Oregon and Washington. But where does it begin and end? Where does the "Midwest" begin and end? What are the borders of "the Bible Belt?" Heck, what are the defined boundaries of Boro Park? And yet, there comes a point where you are undoubtedly on the West Coast, in the Midwest, Bible Belt or Boro Park. Because these areas don't have defined borders, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. In fact, I'd wager that for the majority of human history, most countries didn't have defined borders as we have today.
G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?
How can there be more than one informal region of the United States? How can there be more than one ocean on the world since there is no definite border between the oceans?
In any event, the logical comparison is silly anyway. He's using a human concept (borders, boundaries) to define a supernatural concept. There's no (logical) reason to say that two (or more) gods co-exist together in a way that is beyond the human ken (much as we say that God's lack of origin is beyond our understanding).
Would I love to see a logical (as opposed to a theological) proof to God's unity (or even His existence)? Sure. But this proof doesn't do anything for me.
The Wolf
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Next Battle... Sabbath Mode Ovens
Yeshiva World is reporting that several Gedolim both in the North America and Israel have forbidden the use of "Sabbath-mode" ovens on Yom Tov*. The translation of the kol koreh (according to YW) is below:
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the halachos well enough to say yes or no on this. However, I'd like to know if the underlying assumption ("In our opinion, pressing the keys on Yom Tov is strictly forbidden since pressing a key immediately closes an electrical circuit and instructs the microcontroller to carry out an action.") is correct. That can be verified by an engineer who is familiar with the product. In addition, the Sabbath-mode oven is not a new product... I've owned one for over four years. Why is this coming up now?
Also, please note that here is Rav Heinemann's teshuva allowing the ovens to be used on Yom Tov.*
The Wolf
* Note -- by not allowing, what is not allowed is to change the temperature. You can still use the oven as a regular oven on Yom Tov according to the above rabbanim.
The development of “Sabbath Mode” operation of ovens seeks to permit the raising and lowering of oven temperatures on Yom Tov. The change in temperature settings is accomplished by pressing keys on a keypad that is connected to the microcontroller built into the oven. Pressing the keys while in “Sabbath Mode” does not result in an immediate change in oven temperature nor does it have any other observable effect. Allowing this activity is based on the presumption that pressing the keys is merely a “Grama” and is therefore permitted on Yom Tov.
In our opinion, pressing the keys on Yom Tov is strictly forbidden since pressing a key immediately closes an electrical circuit and instructs the microcontroller to carry out an action. Pressing the key is forbidden just as all manipulation of electricity is forbidden on Shabbos and Yom Tov either because of “Makeh B’patish” or because of “Mesaken” as described in Igros Moshe (vol.3 §42 and vol.4 §84) whereby there can be a Torah violation immediately upon pressing the key even if no “fire’”is created. This operation is not considered “Grama”. [Furthermore, according to a number of authorities, “Grama” does not apply to situations where the eventual outcome is intentional.]
In our opinion, use of “Sabbath Mode” to change the temperature of an oven on Yom Tov represents an assault on the sanctity of Shabbos and Yom Tov and will lead to deterioration in their observance. We hereby declare that one may not rely on “Sabbath Mode” operation to adjust oven temperatures on Yom Tov despite the presence of a Hechsher on these ovens.
To all of the above we affix our signatures:
{HoRav) Yosef Shalom Elyashiv
I have seen the lengthy words of the Rov that permitted the above and they are Halachically incorrect and it is clearly forbidden.
(HoRav) Nisim Karelitz
There is no Heter for the above, nor will Grama accomplish here.
I affix my signature, awaiting the redemption.
(HoRav) Shmuel Wozner
Surely, surely one is obligated to protest this leniency with all our might. Such leniencies are a great degradation in the foundation of Shmiras Shabbos and those that are careful with the honor of Shabbos will bring an eternal Brocho upon themselves.
(HoRav) Yechezkel Roth, Head of Karlsbad Bais Din
Aside from the actual prohibition, there lies herein a breach in the wall of Shmiras Shabbos and Yom Tov through which the Jewish nation is sanctified thoughout the generations.
(HoRav) Yaakov Horowitz, Rav ,Telz Minyan
(HoRav) Elya Ber Wachtfogel
(HoRav) Shlomo Miller, Rosh Kollel, Kollel Avreichim Toronto
(HoRav) Yechiel Tauber, Rosh Kollel Mechon L’Hoyroa, Monsey, NY
(HoRav) Gershon Bess, Rav Kehilas Yaakov, Los Angeles
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the halachos well enough to say yes or no on this. However, I'd like to know if the underlying assumption ("In our opinion, pressing the keys on Yom Tov is strictly forbidden since pressing a key immediately closes an electrical circuit and instructs the microcontroller to carry out an action.") is correct. That can be verified by an engineer who is familiar with the product. In addition, the Sabbath-mode oven is not a new product... I've owned one for over four years. Why is this coming up now?
Also, please note that here is Rav Heinemann's teshuva allowing the ovens to be used on Yom Tov.*
The Wolf
* Note -- by not allowing, what is not allowed is to change the temperature. You can still use the oven as a regular oven on Yom Tov according to the above rabbanim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)